I'm a little worried on behalf of the "Python Language Tooling Team" at Meta, because uv has been so popular, and I wouldn't be surprised if ty wins out in this space.
So watch out, or this will become like Atom or Flow, an internal competitor of a technology that is surpassed by the more popular external open source version, leaving the directors/vps muttering to themselves "It's too bad that this team exists at all. Could we get rid of them and just switch to the open source stuff?"
Perhaps just something for the manager (Aaron Pollack?) to keep an eye on....
Hey Kevin, we overlapped for a bit during your time at FB when I was working on Flow. Nice to hear from you!
I’m working on Pyrefly now, but worked on Flow for many years before. For what it’s worth, we are taking a different approach compared to Flow and have explicitly prioritized open source and community building, something I know we both care a lot about.
Of course, nothing is guaranteed and we’ve seen plenty of volatility in bigco investments to infra lately, but I do believe we’re starting this journey on the right foot.
Meta seems to place a pretty high premium on controlling its open source projects, especially dev tooling. I guess dating back at least to the git maintainers telling them they were doing things wrong with their monorepo and refusing to upstream scale fixes, which precipitated their migration to mercurial (who were more than happy to take the contributions).
Given the change velocity of internal tooling you can understand why owning your own project makes sense here.
Of course tagged string literals can be compiled down to a form where no string parsing occurs. This is a really old technique; I implemented it, like many others, in PHP in late 1990s.
Vut inside an IDE or an LSP, tagged literal strings need quite a bit more special support than JSX, AFAICT.
Do you mean at runtime but only once at startup, like parsing a Lua program into bytecode? Or do you mean at true compile time like Zig and Rust format strings?
I believe the argument was that jsx doesn't support that either, which should be correct as far as I know.
They're all features in the jsx ecosystem that are provided by other libs, which are often preconfigured with projects utilizing jsx.
I did miss a lot of the tooling I've gotten used to the last time I made a weekend project utilizing lit webcomponents for sure, but I believe the people advocating for it usually rejoice in having less tooling in their development pipeline - it's just a fundamental disconnect between people that have learned and gotten used to current frontend development and people that don't really want to bother with it, looking for simpler solutions with less moving parts.
JSX has a constrained interface that is a tree of objects with some properties on each. I guess you can have a lsp for lit-html but it will inherit the unconstrained nature of html, which is everything being string, and therefore useless as a programming interface.
Hi folks, I work on the Pyrefly team at Meta. Our FAQ covers a good number of the questions raised here: https://pyrefly.org/en/docs/pyrefly-faq/. I can also try to answer some of your questions. Thanks for taking a look!
There's nothing magical to type-checking Python. You can write this in any programming language. TypeScript is actually a pretty nice language for writing static analysis tools.
Yes. If you want runtime validation of data you’re taking in people recommended pydantic. If you’re looking for runtime validation within your own code I’ve seen people use beartype, though to be honest I don’t personally understand the value added from it
On one hand, I feel like I've been in a coma since covid because I've just been coasting along with Marshmallow and jsonschema, but on the other hand it's like a lot of the major advances have been in the past couple years. Apparently pydantic got a big version update in 2023? And now all these competing static type checkers?
"Today we’re releasing Pyrefly as an alpha. At the same time, we’re busy burning down the long-tail of bugs and features aiming to remove the alpha label this Summer. "
Why is "written in Rust" a feature to be mentioned? Who cares? So my type checker has memory protection and is compiled. I'm not running my type checker on an embedded system or in a mission critical service. It seems kind of like "written in Erlang". I'd prefer to have non-performance critical code for Python written in Python. That way the broader community can support and extend it.
Have you used Rust before? As a user, the speed and safety is nice. But as a developer, Rust projects are easier to hack on and contribute to.
That's kind of the whole appeal of Astral. I know Python better than Rust, but it's a lot easier for me to hack on Rust projects. The whole appeal of Astral is that they want to bring Rust-quality tooling to Python.
> Rust projects are easier to hack on and contribute to.
This was actually the subject of a study at the University of Waterloo:
> We find that despite concerns about ease of use, first-time contributors to Rust projects are about 70 times less likely to introduce vulnerabilities than first-time contributors to C++ projects.
Static typing is a big one, but I've been so steeped in Python that I don't appreciate it as much as maybe I should.
The big thing for me is that most Rust projects are statically(ish) compiled (like go) and only need a `cargo build`. No venvs or pip commands or node/npm/nvm or make, etc.
Also, the Zen of Python is supposed to be one obvious way to do something but ddg "python dependency manager" and have a good laugh. That actually becomes triple lol for when uv steps in and says "uh, your pip requirements.txt is unsatisifyable, what are you even?!"
And let me just say what an absolutely stellar job the rustc authors have done with the error messages. Just out of this world thoughtful. I have not yet gotten on board with their compile time vs safety and insight tradeoff, but I can see why they chose those two axes
What languages? I'm asking this earnestly, because there are dozens of languages I can name but I have not used. Every language I've used (except maybe Julia) asks you also to install and use something extra, like "meson" or "ninja" or "maven" or "cmake", for its build phase.
You want languages that can be compiled similarly to "cargo build"? Well, Go is one of them. Many C projects are just one "make" command away. OCaml has "dune build". Odin has "odin build", too. There are a lot of other languages I am missing here though.
Type inference is handy, but as an observation source code is 90% written for humans - I believe that CPython knows what types they are, that's how TypeError even exists, but seeing "def doit(erthang):" doesn't help me in the slightest. Often PyCharm can figure it out, because bless their hearts, but then developers whine about "wwwaaa, pycharm too slo grug use ed" and then one gets AttributeError in production because who could have foreseen
Pyright being so fast has gotten my coworkers (as well as myself) who dare to code using tooling not made by JetBrains an easy to use instant-feedback type checker that can be used in CI. So I think it's a huge win.
This response highlights both parts what I was saying: it's not just strings, and "I'm sure there's some extra things that the standard library wants you to duct tape together, good luck"
It is exactly two strings that are required. The docs are there for flags etc, use them. Types were not entered directly into stdlib source for historical reasons.
If you would enjoy further support, install stubs from typeshed.
$ python3.12 -c '
import re
pat = re.compile("who knew")
ma = re.match(pat, "who knew types matter")
print(ma)
'
<re.Match object; span=(0, 8), match='who knew'>
> The docs are there for flags etc, use them.
I guess it's good we're all using LLMs nowadays, since in general computers no read so good, that's why we write in specialized languages for their benefit. That would include this fancy new thing I've heard about where one writes down what the input and output domains are for functions
> Types were not entered directly into stdlib source for historical reasons.
Historical reasons defeats the purpose of having git tags, to say nothing of them having several concurrent branches named after the various release trains. I mean, historically print was a keyword, but you sure don't see them from __future__ import print_statement all over the 3.12 tree now do you? It's because they DGAF preferring there to be seemingly unlimited aftermarket tooling to try and drag python3000 into the 21st century
> If you would enjoy further support, install stubs from typeshed.
While trying to dig up whatever a sane person would use to "install stubs" -- because it for damn sure isn't $(pip install typeshed) -- I learned that you were even more incorrect - it accepts bytes, too https://github.com/python/typeshed/blob/9430260770b627c04313...
Anyway, they also go out of their way to say "don't install typeshed" and I guess that's why they don't have any git tags because releases are for children
Right, the first arg can also be a compiled pattern|bytes. Not an issue in the real world however. The problem is when it can't handle what you give it, not when it can handle what you give it and additional things.
Normally you'd use `pattern.match(string)` in that case.
They said specifically more than once that they're not going to change (almost) every line in the repo for any reason, and not only to types but other syntax improvements. Probably to keep git blame intact and avoid introducing new bugs.
Honestly, this reads as an obsession with theoretical concerns.
> Rust projects are easier to hack on and contribute to.
You can say that about any languages that you yourself know, or other people know. There are beautiful codebases in many other languages, and awful ones in the same languages.
If your Rust codebase has a lot of unwraps and lifetime annotations (among other things), I will probably not find it a joy to contribute to it, at all.
> You can say that about any languages that you yourself know, or other people know.
No, I'm saying that Rust was easier to hack on and contribute to (on my own) when I had never written any Rust before. Rust (and almost Go) is the only language I can confidently say this about. It's not even in my top 5 strongest languages now, but I still stand by this.
Very normal C++ project, ~500 words of instructions. Once I started thinking about using a chroot to fix dependency issues after I'd already built bebl and gegl, I gave up, because I ran out of free time. It didn't matter how much C++ I knew.
Rust projects, comparatively, almost never demand that. It's almost always just `cargo build`, with some rare exceptions (e.g. The one exception I know of for which this is not true for is Graphite, which is a web app and also uses npm. )
I do not know about Rust (because of all these lifetime and borrow checking stuff), but Go is definitely one of the languages one can easily contribute to without knowing much about the language, especially if you use VSCode with its Go extension.
I do not like C++ projects, they are behemoths, slow to compile, and C++ continues getting so much bullshit bolted on top of the language. It is extremely complicated, at least for me.
Most of my projects - regardless of language - has extremely simple build instructions, no matter how large it is.
As for GIMP, "meson" and "ninja" is not too bad, I have come across projects with much worse build instructions, but I agree, it is leaning towards "complicated".
> Once I started thinking about using a chroot to fix dependency issues after I'd already built bebl and gegl
Been there, done that. I remember compiling GCC myself, it was not as straightforward as, say, LLVM + clang. I think the issue is not with the language itself, however, but the developers who do not simplify the build process.
Rust has very arcane syntax and a lot of rules that developers coming from interpreted / garbage-collected languages (like the ones using these tools) would have a hard time grasping. It’s easy for people who are already familiar with it, but isn’t that always the case?
I'm saying the opposite, actually. I found it easier to contribute to Rust projects (with zero hours Rust experience, and much Python/Java/C/C++/Ada) because Rust projects are significantly easier to build. (Just a `cargo build` in the default case.)
It makes no sense to me. You found it easier to contribute to Rust projects because... Rust projects are significantly easier to build? What? You can just do "dune build" in OCaml, or run "make" for many C projects. Plus, it is also significantly slower to build Rust projects, you should have probably added that.
An LSP is performance-critical code. It directly affects responsiveness of your IDE, or even the viable scope of a project that the LSP can handle.
Rust is both CPU- and memory-efficient, quite unlike Python. (It could have been OCaml / Reason, or Haskell, they are both reasonably fast and efficient, and very convenient to write stuff like typecheckers in. But the circle of possible contributors would be much narrower.)
The circle of possible contributors doesn't really matter. It's a Meta project, they have others written in OCaml and to this day they manage to have contributors eg https://github.com/facebook/flow because they hire and pay them.
To be fair, pyright's performance as an LSP is tolerable. The main issue to me is running the type checker as a pre-commit hook or as part of CI. Mypy is awful, though.
>Why is "written in Rust" a feature to be mentioned? Who cares?
A lot of people. Correct or not, I think "written in rust" have become synonymous with "very much faster than the alrernatives" in the pyrhon community.
It makes it easy to find performant and quality software by searching for "[insert tool description] rust", I personally don't mind! Seeing how 95% of the tools I use on the daily are written in Rust, I love finding new ones and am rarely disappointed.
I feel like the likelihood that a project will say what language it is written in is much higher if that language is Rust. I like Rust but I do find this trend a little annoying. (Even though I acknowledge that "written in Rust" probably means the tool is relatively new, not buggy, and easy to use.)
> I'd prefer to have non-performance critical code for Python written in Python
A type checker is performance critical code. You can watch how Pylint, just a linter, written in Python, lints your source code line by line. It's so slow it can take 30 seconds to update the linting after you change some lines.
I just tried pyrefly on a project that really needed it. It complained about an assignment of a new value to a global int variable within a function, even though the function contained the 'global' statement that should have made that OK, I think. I know that globals and assigning to them here and there are problematic for real good software, but I am surprised that Pyrefly is stricter than python on something that I don't see as a type- checking issue. But it did find a decent list of other problems that I haven't finished working my way through.
I had gotten so messed up trying to put together a quicky hobby-type program to create a data structure of perhaps a hundred data items in various overlapping and inter-related hierarchies, tuples, dicts, and lists akimbo, that I gave up on it about 10 days ago. I hypothecated that bondage and discipline might be the way to control the confusion, so I'm rewriting, using SQLite for the dataflow from function to function, lots of little tables and no optional fields. Can anyone opine on whether that is a sensible option?
Thanks for trying it out! If you run into any blockers, please let us know by filing a GitHub issue or sending us a message on Discord. Pyrefly is still alpha software, so bugs are expected, but your feedback is extremely valuable as we work to squash them.
The Rust code written here is so easy to follow but all these new Python tooling being written in Rust worries me, it adds yes another vector to the N-language problem.
For the Python ecosystem, it's natural to use Python where Python can cope, and a high-performance language where it cannot. There are two such languages in wide use around Python: Rust, and, inevitably, C. So N = 3.
(C, to my mind, should be eventually phased out from application programming altogether, so N would be 2, but it's a loooooong process; Python may become a legacy language before it converges.)
Yes but the idea is that by slightly upgrading python code to mojo (which is a controlled superset of python), you get complied very high performance code. So for example if it were possible to convert mypy to mojo it could be as fast as rust but pythonic.
By the way, Mojo seems to have given up on being a strict superset of python, I think they're aiming for more of a C++ to C relationship where there are some small differences, but the majority of code will work without modification.
Sadly I think the ship has sailed and Rust has hit critical mass now. Personally I find it aesthetically awkward, but for Python integration and tooling it seems like Rust has become the default C replacement. You would think Python devs might have preferred something more superficially Pythonic like Nim or perhaps something more C-ish like Zig, but those projects don't have the same buzz so here we are. There's probably more young devs who are into Rust than C nowadays.
I am not holding out much hope for Mojo because it feels deeply embedded in the AI/LLM hype space instead of being presented to Python devs outside of that niche as a useful language extension in its own right.
I don't think it really matters whether Rust has hit critical mass or not tbh, just the fact that it is entirely a new language to learn with very different semantics compared to Python is a blocker for many people.
Mojo right now is not much better, but I've seen Python compatibility factor into the language design and semantics again and again. It is not enough to be a language that looks like Python, like Nim, things also have to behave the same when the semantics of static typing allows.
Mojo is not deeply embedded in the AI/LLM hype, there is nothing in the language that is targeted specifically for AI. The standard Library has a GPU package for general-purpose gpu programming, but that isn't AI specific.
I'm curious to know more about the Pyre to Pyrefly transition, specifically the rewrite in Rust. Was that merely a case of trading in a lesser-known language for the language du jour? Were there specific advantages they wanted to get out of Rust?
> Not only is Pyrefly written in a new language (Rust instead of OCaml), but its design deviates in a major way from Pyre.
I'm sure you had reasons to do it this way. But given sufficient time to market, implementing the algorithm in pyre and then tooling/llm assisted conversion to pyrefly would've been preferable.
May be you'd have had some humans in the loop initially. But that tech is getting better and aligned with the direction Meta and the rest of the industry are taking.
I think astral and meta were both working on their own type-checkers independently. My current understanding is that meta released so they could preempt the initial release of ty. It seems like they're a bit further ahead in development. Not sure if there are going to be any real differences between the two down the line.
Sure, but in this case they are both implementations of a spec defined by PEPs, so a bit more like gcc vs clang (less tightly bound than those, of course, in design decisions). Neither company is trying to invent a new language here.
The current major type checkers, mypy and pyright, are also based on the same PEPs, but you can still see differences between them. For example, my codebase passes pyright in strict mode, but mypy results in a bunch of type errors. I'd expect pyrefly and ty to be slightly different from each other.
the specs are still evolving, and the various type checker implementations are what is driving them forward. in general, capturing the dynamic typing semantics of python in a gradually typed system is not a fully solved problem, and the type checkers are experimenting with various approaches to it.
I don't know the differences between the two well enough to know if it was the case here, but in my experience sometimes you need to innovate on a fork, or from scratch in order to create the space/freedom to do so.
Once a project is popular, it's harder to justify and be confident about major changes (aka https://m.xkcd.com/1172/)
It seems like the share a lot of the same goals but my impression is Poetry is much slower to pick up on standards. It’s normal to use uv with a project now that doesn’t have any [tool.uv] section in pyproject.toml at all but every poetry project I’ve seen is littered with [poetry] sections, even dependencies. Makes me not want to use it
ty doesn't invoke a Python interpreter to discover imports yet — so you need to either set `VIRTUAL_ENV` or pass `--python` to configure your target environment. We'll expand support here in the future, but this part of ty's interface is intentionally minimal while we focus on core type checking features.
To repeat an earlier comment of mine from the launch of uv on hn (tl; dr: these new type checkers never support django):
The way these type checkers get fast is usually by not supporting the crazy rich reality of realworld python code.
The reason we're stuck on mypy at work is because it's the only type checker that has a plugin for Django that properly manages to type check its crazy runtime generated methods.
I wish more python tooling took the TS approach of "what's in the wild IS the language", as opposed to a "we only typecheck the constructs we think you SHOULD be using".
1. Maybe it's time to drop the crazy runtime generation and have something statically discoverable, or at least a way to annotate the typing statically.
2. Astral indicated already they plan to just add direct support for Django and other popular languages.
3. As people replied to similar comments on the previous threads (maybe to you?): that's not why ty is fast and why mypy is slow. It's also an easy claim to disprove: run both without plugins and you'll see ty is still 100x+ faster.
> 1. Maybe it's time to drop the crazy runtime generation and have something statically discoverable, or at least a way to annotate the typing statically.
That, and duck typing, are one of the biggest things that make Python what it is. If I have to drop all that for type checking and rewrite my code, why would I rewrite it in Python?
Having used Python for many years, it’s the least interesting aspect of the language. Almost all such tricks can be done with compile time meta programming, often even without API changes.
I don’t know about a blog post, but I mean the obvious stuff like codegen, generics/templates or macros to achieve the same things Python does by being dynamic.
Not only duck types (ie structural type hierarchies) can be statically verified but they can be statically infered as well, as demonstrated for instance by ocaml since 1996.
"Here is a nickel, kid, get yourself a better programming language" :-p
these are two different issues. supporting django involves adding a special-case module that essentially replicates its code generation and then adds that to the type-level view of the code. pyrefly or ty could do that and would still be just as fast. my guess is that once they have the basic python type checker as close to 100% as they can, they will start looking at custom modules for various popular metaprogramming libraries, or add enough of a plugin framework that the community can contribute them.
source: spent several years working on a python type checker
TS has the luxury of being its own distinct language, defining its own semantics and having its own compiler. You could have something like that targeting Python.
The only type checker that fully works (meaning it successfully performs the necessary type inference all for inherited objects) for our large and highly modular python codebase, is Pycharm (I'm guessing it's their own custom tool from the ground up? Not really sure, actually.)
What can you do in PyCharm that you cannot do in VS Code? I recently switched from PyCharm to VS Code to maintain a project with 250k LoC in Python (Django) and VS Code has been like a breath of fresh air. While you may need to install some plugins to get it "just right", it's more extensible. PyCharm is more "batteries included", and maybe that's the rub here.
pyrefly is not tied to vscode? Also please try to be more considerate of people preferences, and pycharm is not strictly better. Remote dev on vscode is very convenient for me, should I go on the Internet saying that pycharm is trash? No
I’m not saying VS Code is trash but I think it’s closer to a text editor than an IDE. I even use it for some things non python but I remain curious to the fact why people use it for python.
It might not be tied to VS Code but the title clearly says “New […] IDE experience for…” which is why I commented. I had hoped to see something for PyCharm or even a new IDE.
I'm a little worried on behalf of the "Python Language Tooling Team" at Meta, because uv has been so popular, and I wouldn't be surprised if ty wins out in this space.
So watch out, or this will become like Atom or Flow, an internal competitor of a technology that is surpassed by the more popular external open source version, leaving the directors/vps muttering to themselves "It's too bad that this team exists at all. Could we get rid of them and just switch to the open source stuff?"
Perhaps just something for the manager (Aaron Pollack?) to keep an eye on....
Hey Kevin, we overlapped for a bit during your time at FB when I was working on Flow. Nice to hear from you!
I’m working on Pyrefly now, but worked on Flow for many years before. For what it’s worth, we are taking a different approach compared to Flow and have explicitly prioritized open source and community building, something I know we both care a lot about.
Of course, nothing is guaranteed and we’ve seen plenty of volatility in bigco investments to infra lately, but I do believe we’re starting this journey on the right foot.
Cheers, Sam
Best of luck!
Meta seems to place a pretty high premium on controlling its open source projects, especially dev tooling. I guess dating back at least to the git maintainers telling them they were doing things wrong with their monorepo and refusing to upstream scale fixes, which precipitated their migration to mercurial (who were more than happy to take the contributions).
Given the change velocity of internal tooling you can understand why owning your own project makes sense here.
JSX is my favorite thing to come out of Facebook (also the only good thing).
I feel bad for that people that love JSX and don't know about lit-html yet.
JSX supports
* Autocompletion
* Type checking
* Syntax highlighting
* Lack of runtime string parsing
Tagged template literals don't.
JSX does not support any of these, it was coded by others.
tagged template literals can have all of these, some already exist¹ and doesn't need a build step.
1. https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=bierner....
The only inherent feature of JSX is compile time "parsing" whereas tagged literals inherently require runtime string parsing.
But yeah other than that you're right. I'm just talking about first-class VS Code support. Which to me means a lot.
Of course tagged string literals can be compiled down to a form where no string parsing occurs. This is a really old technique; I implemented it, like many others, in PHP in late 1990s.
Vut inside an IDE or an LSP, tagged literal strings need quite a bit more special support than JSX, AFAICT.
Do you mean at runtime but only once at startup, like parsing a Lua program into bytecode? Or do you mean at true compile time like Zig and Rust format strings?
Matt, who works pretty high level on VS Code, has written some amazing plugins.
But they still don't have all the first-class features of JSX.
I don't think this plugin works with type checking for instance.
I believe the argument was that jsx doesn't support that either, which should be correct as far as I know.
They're all features in the jsx ecosystem that are provided by other libs, which are often preconfigured with projects utilizing jsx.
I did miss a lot of the tooling I've gotten used to the last time I made a weekend project utilizing lit webcomponents for sure, but I believe the people advocating for it usually rejoice in having less tooling in their development pipeline - it's just a fundamental disconnect between people that have learned and gotten used to current frontend development and people that don't really want to bother with it, looking for simpler solutions with less moving parts.
JSX has a constrained interface that is a tree of objects with some properties on each. I guess you can have a lsp for lit-html but it will inherit the unconstrained nature of html, which is everything being string, and therefore useless as a programming interface.
> and don't know about lit-html yet.
You mean strings with custom non-standard syntax and weird rules of hooks, sorry, directives?
Like Angular.
Hi folks, I work on the Pyrefly team at Meta. Our FAQ covers a good number of the questions raised here: https://pyrefly.org/en/docs/pyrefly-faq/. I can also try to answer some of your questions. Thanks for taking a look!
At Slack we have an internal Rust-based Hack typechecker that’s about 20% faster than the OCaml one (we use both)
Did you see better speedups over Pyre? Aka did I leave stuff on the table…
Hack is quite a bit more optimized than Pyre was, but Pyrefly is at least 10x faster than Pyre on the IG codebase.
I didn’t know about the Rust-based Hack checker— that’s really cool!
Seems there are at least three Rust-based competitors for type checkers in Python now (Microsoft, Facebook, Astral), and of course there's still mypy.
Close, Microsoft’s type checker Pyright is Typescript. Its still faster than mypy for me though.
Pls forgive my ignorance, but how is Typescript (a superset of Javascript) used to type-check Python?
You can write a parser and type checker for pretty much any language in pretty much any language. It's just text files as input and text as output.
They're saying pyright is a Python type checker, but it's written in Typescript, not Rust.
There's nothing magical to type-checking Python. You can write this in any programming language. TypeScript is actually a pretty nice language for writing static analysis tools.
just like the Python compiler/interpreter is written in C.
They're all static type checkers right? None for runtime?
Yes. If you want runtime validation of data you’re taking in people recommended pydantic. If you’re looking for runtime validation within your own code I’ve seen people use beartype, though to be honest I don’t personally understand the value added from it
...or Marshmallow, which allows one to do many complex validations in a relatively trivial manner.
On one hand, I feel like I've been in a coma since covid because I've just been coasting along with Marshmallow and jsonschema, but on the other hand it's like a lot of the major advances have been in the past couple years. Apparently pydantic got a big version update in 2023? And now all these competing static type checkers?
Pydantic got the re write in rust treatment so de/serialization is crazy fast now.
msgspec must be insanely fast then: https://jcristharif.com/msgspec/benchmarks.html
But of course unless parsing and manipulating JSON is your bottleneck, Pydantic is great, too.
It's true. msgspec has incredibly fast msgpack serialization. It's a shame so few people know about it.
JSON, too!
this is the official announcement, but pyrefly was previously discuted a few weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43831524
"Today we’re releasing Pyrefly as an alpha. At the same time, we’re busy burning down the long-tail of bugs and features aiming to remove the alpha label this Summer. "
Why is "written in Rust" a feature to be mentioned? Who cares? So my type checker has memory protection and is compiled. I'm not running my type checker on an embedded system or in a mission critical service. It seems kind of like "written in Erlang". I'd prefer to have non-performance critical code for Python written in Python. That way the broader community can support and extend it.
Have you used Rust before? As a user, the speed and safety is nice. But as a developer, Rust projects are easier to hack on and contribute to.
That's kind of the whole appeal of Astral. I know Python better than Rust, but it's a lot easier for me to hack on Rust projects. The whole appeal of Astral is that they want to bring Rust-quality tooling to Python.
> Rust projects are easier to hack on and contribute to.
This was actually the subject of a study at the University of Waterloo:
> We find that despite concerns about ease of use, first-time contributors to Rust projects are about 70 times less likely to introduce vulnerabilities than first-time contributors to C++ projects.
https://cypherpunks.ca/~iang/pubs/gradingcurve-secdev23.pdf
> but it's a lot easier for me to hack on Rust projects
That static typing is nice, I wonder if it's going to catch on one day.
The amount of energy spent trying to bend dynamically types languages into being real ones is just comical. Even the standard library is barely typed, so they give no fucks https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.13.3/Lib/re/__init...
What does it accept? Who knows. What does it return? Don't worry about it
Static typing is a big one, but I've been so steeped in Python that I don't appreciate it as much as maybe I should.
The big thing for me is that most Rust projects are statically(ish) compiled (like go) and only need a `cargo build`. No venvs or pip commands or node/npm/nvm or make, etc.
Also, the Zen of Python is supposed to be one obvious way to do something but ddg "python dependency manager" and have a good laugh. That actually becomes triple lol for when uv steps in and says "uh, your pip requirements.txt is unsatisifyable, what are you even?!"
And let me just say what an absolutely stellar job the rustc authors have done with the error messages. Just out of this world thoughtful. I have not yet gotten on board with their compile time vs safety and insight tradeoff, but I can see why they chose those two axes
It’s not a rule. It’s a guide to being idiomatic.
It’s like laughing at photographers for not using the “rule of thirds” sometimes.
Yeah, and static typing is not limited to Rust, and there are many other programming languages that do not have any of that venvs / pip nonsense.
What languages? I'm asking this earnestly, because there are dozens of languages I can name but I have not used. Every language I've used (except maybe Julia) asks you also to install and use something extra, like "meson" or "ninja" or "maven" or "cmake", for its build phase.
You want languages that can be compiled similarly to "cargo build"? Well, Go is one of them. Many C projects are just one "make" command away. OCaml has "dune build". Odin has "odin build", too. There are a lot of other languages I am missing here though.
Oh yeah, right about Go. Odin and OCaml are languages I don't use but have heard their names.
I'm not saying Rust has exclusivity here, I'm only explaining why I like to know a project was written in Rust.
Hindly Milner type inference needs to catch on
Type inference is handy, but as an observation source code is 90% written for humans - I believe that CPython knows what types they are, that's how TypeError even exists, but seeing "def doit(erthang):" doesn't help me in the slightest. Often PyCharm can figure it out, because bless their hearts, but then developers whine about "wwwaaa, pycharm too slo grug use ed" and then one gets AttributeError in production because who could have foreseen
IntelliJ sadly has slow UI, including bizarrely high typing latency. That is unrelated to analysis it does, which is acceptable to be slow.
Pyright being so fast has gotten my coworkers (as well as myself) who dare to code using tooling not made by JetBrains an easy to use instant-feedback type checker that can be used in CI. So I think it's a huge win.
Real ones?
regex.match takes strings and returns a match object. There are most likely stubs, if you are new to it and need support.
This response highlights both parts what I was saying: it's not just strings, and "I'm sure there's some extra things that the standard library wants you to duct tape together, good luck"
It is exactly two strings that are required. The docs are there for flags etc, use them. Types were not entered directly into stdlib source for historical reasons.
If you would enjoy further support, install stubs from typeshed.
> It is exactly two strings that are required
It is exactly as I said, it's not just strings
> The docs are there for flags etc, use them.I guess it's good we're all using LLMs nowadays, since in general computers no read so good, that's why we write in specialized languages for their benefit. That would include this fancy new thing I've heard about where one writes down what the input and output domains are for functions
> Types were not entered directly into stdlib source for historical reasons.
Historical reasons defeats the purpose of having git tags, to say nothing of them having several concurrent branches named after the various release trains. I mean, historically print was a keyword, but you sure don't see them from __future__ import print_statement all over the 3.12 tree now do you? It's because they DGAF preferring there to be seemingly unlimited aftermarket tooling to try and drag python3000 into the 21st century
> If you would enjoy further support, install stubs from typeshed.
While trying to dig up whatever a sane person would use to "install stubs" -- because it for damn sure isn't $(pip install typeshed) -- I learned that you were even more incorrect - it accepts bytes, too https://github.com/python/typeshed/blob/9430260770b627c04313...
Anyway, they also go out of their way to say "don't install typeshed" and I guess that's why they don't have any git tags because releases are for children
Right, the first arg can also be a compiled pattern|bytes. Not an issue in the real world however. The problem is when it can't handle what you give it, not when it can handle what you give it and additional things.
Normally you'd use `pattern.match(string)` in that case.
They said specifically more than once that they're not going to change (almost) every line in the repo for any reason, and not only to types but other syntax improvements. Probably to keep git blame intact and avoid introducing new bugs.
Honestly, this reads as an obsession with theoretical concerns.
> Rust projects are easier to hack on and contribute to.
You can say that about any languages that you yourself know, or other people know. There are beautiful codebases in many other languages, and awful ones in the same languages.
If your Rust codebase has a lot of unwraps and lifetime annotations (among other things), I will probably not find it a joy to contribute to it, at all.
> You can say that about any languages that you yourself know, or other people know.
No, I'm saying that Rust was easier to hack on and contribute to (on my own) when I had never written any Rust before. Rust (and almost Go) is the only language I can confidently say this about. It's not even in my top 5 strongest languages now, but I still stand by this.
E.g. Look at the build instructions for Gimp and all its prerequisites: https://developer.gimp.org/core/setup/build/
Very normal C++ project, ~500 words of instructions. Once I started thinking about using a chroot to fix dependency issues after I'd already built bebl and gegl, I gave up, because I ran out of free time. It didn't matter how much C++ I knew.
Rust projects, comparatively, almost never demand that. It's almost always just `cargo build`, with some rare exceptions (e.g. The one exception I know of for which this is not true for is Graphite, which is a web app and also uses npm. )
I do not know about Rust (because of all these lifetime and borrow checking stuff), but Go is definitely one of the languages one can easily contribute to without knowing much about the language, especially if you use VSCode with its Go extension.
I do not like C++ projects, they are behemoths, slow to compile, and C++ continues getting so much bullshit bolted on top of the language. It is extremely complicated, at least for me.
Most of my projects - regardless of language - has extremely simple build instructions, no matter how large it is.
As for GIMP, "meson" and "ninja" is not too bad, I have come across projects with much worse build instructions, but I agree, it is leaning towards "complicated".
> Once I started thinking about using a chroot to fix dependency issues after I'd already built bebl and gegl
Been there, done that. I remember compiling GCC myself, it was not as straightforward as, say, LLVM + clang. I think the issue is not with the language itself, however, but the developers who do not simplify the build process.
Rust has very arcane syntax and a lot of rules that developers coming from interpreted / garbage-collected languages (like the ones using these tools) would have a hard time grasping. It’s easy for people who are already familiar with it, but isn’t that always the case?
I'm saying the opposite, actually. I found it easier to contribute to Rust projects (with zero hours Rust experience, and much Python/Java/C/C++/Ada) because Rust projects are significantly easier to build. (Just a `cargo build` in the default case.)
It makes no sense to me. You found it easier to contribute to Rust projects because... Rust projects are significantly easier to build? What? You can just do "dune build" in OCaml, or run "make" for many C projects. Plus, it is also significantly slower to build Rust projects, you should have probably added that.
An LSP is performance-critical code. It directly affects responsiveness of your IDE, or even the viable scope of a project that the LSP can handle.
Rust is both CPU- and memory-efficient, quite unlike Python. (It could have been OCaml / Reason, or Haskell, they are both reasonably fast and efficient, and very convenient to write stuff like typecheckers in. But the circle of possible contributors would be much narrower.)
The circle of possible contributors doesn't really matter. It's a Meta project, they have others written in OCaml and to this day they manage to have contributors eg https://github.com/facebook/flow because they hire and pay them.
To be fair, pyright's performance as an LSP is tolerable. The main issue to me is running the type checker as a pre-commit hook or as part of CI. Mypy is awful, though.
>Why is "written in Rust" a feature to be mentioned? Who cares?
A lot of people. Correct or not, I think "written in rust" have become synonymous with "very much faster than the alrernatives" in the pyrhon community.
It makes it easy to find performant and quality software by searching for "[insert tool description] rust", I personally don't mind! Seeing how 95% of the tools I use on the daily are written in Rust, I love finding new ones and am rarely disappointed.
Shortcut for "noticeably fast."
Open source Rust is still review able.
I feel like 70% of open source projects on GitHub say written in the language that they were written in
I feel like the likelihood that a project will say what language it is written in is much higher if that language is Rust. I like Rust but I do find this trend a little annoying. (Even though I acknowledge that "written in Rust" probably means the tool is relatively new, not buggy, and easy to use.)
> Even though I acknowledge that "written in Rust" probably means the tool is relatively new, not buggy, and easy to use.
I genuinely chose the language for one of my projects based on this reasoning. I want to be in the nice UX gang.
[flagged]
> I'd prefer to have non-performance critical code for Python written in Python
A type checker is performance critical code. You can watch how Pylint, just a linter, written in Python, lints your source code line by line. It's so slow it can take 30 seconds to update the linting after you change some lines.
Or entire projects abandoning checking because mypy is so damned slow for anything non-trivial
Many of these make the mistake of running against an entire codebase instead of checking vcs first and only running against changed files.
You still need to type-check files that weren't changed if they were affected by a file that was.
> Why is "written in Rust" a feature to be mentioned? Who cares?
If one is a "purist", the idea of non-python tool involvement may dissatisfy.
Scare-quoting "purist", given the general lack thereof anywhere in Open Source, python itself being a case in point.
Happy to see instructions for integrating into Vim/Neovim: https://pyrefly.org/en/docs/IDE/#other-editors
I just tried pyrefly on a project that really needed it. It complained about an assignment of a new value to a global int variable within a function, even though the function contained the 'global' statement that should have made that OK, I think. I know that globals and assigning to them here and there are problematic for real good software, but I am surprised that Pyrefly is stricter than python on something that I don't see as a type- checking issue. But it did find a decent list of other problems that I haven't finished working my way through.
I had gotten so messed up trying to put together a quicky hobby-type program to create a data structure of perhaps a hundred data items in various overlapping and inter-related hierarchies, tuples, dicts, and lists akimbo, that I gave up on it about 10 days ago. I hypothecated that bondage and discipline might be the way to control the confusion, so I'm rewriting, using SQLite for the dataflow from function to function, lots of little tables and no optional fields. Can anyone opine on whether that is a sensible option?
Thanks for trying it out! If you run into any blockers, please let us know by filing a GitHub issue or sending us a message on Discord. Pyrefly is still alpha software, so bugs are expected, but your feedback is extremely valuable as we work to squash them.
The Rust code written here is so easy to follow but all these new Python tooling being written in Rust worries me, it adds yes another vector to the N-language problem.
I hope Mojo can offer something here
For the Python ecosystem, it's natural to use Python where Python can cope, and a high-performance language where it cannot. There are two such languages in wide use around Python: Rust, and, inevitably, C. So N = 3.
(C, to my mind, should be eventually phased out from application programming altogether, so N would be 2, but it's a loooooong process; Python may become a legacy language before it converges.)
Yes but the idea is that by slightly upgrading python code to mojo (which is a controlled superset of python), you get complied very high performance code. So for example if it were possible to convert mypy to mojo it could be as fast as rust but pythonic.
By the way, Mojo seems to have given up on being a strict superset of python, I think they're aiming for more of a C++ to C relationship where there are some small differences, but the majority of code will work without modification.
It has not. They decided to change the messaging to reflect what the language is to today because people kept thinking it is already a superset
Sadly I think the ship has sailed and Rust has hit critical mass now. Personally I find it aesthetically awkward, but for Python integration and tooling it seems like Rust has become the default C replacement. You would think Python devs might have preferred something more superficially Pythonic like Nim or perhaps something more C-ish like Zig, but those projects don't have the same buzz so here we are. There's probably more young devs who are into Rust than C nowadays.
I am not holding out much hope for Mojo because it feels deeply embedded in the AI/LLM hype space instead of being presented to Python devs outside of that niche as a useful language extension in its own right.
I don't think it really matters whether Rust has hit critical mass or not tbh, just the fact that it is entirely a new language to learn with very different semantics compared to Python is a blocker for many people.
Mojo right now is not much better, but I've seen Python compatibility factor into the language design and semantics again and again. It is not enough to be a language that looks like Python, like Nim, things also have to behave the same when the semantics of static typing allows.
Mojo is not deeply embedded in the AI/LLM hype, there is nothing in the language that is targeted specifically for AI. The standard Library has a GPU package for general-purpose gpu programming, but that isn't AI specific.
How close to a statically-typed language does such addition make Python ?
I'm curious to know more about the Pyre to Pyrefly transition, specifically the rewrite in Rust. Was that merely a case of trading in a lesser-known language for the language du jour? Were there specific advantages they wanted to get out of Rust?
Hi! We address this question in our FAQ and probably could do a longer blog post about our experience after we are further along: https://pyrefly.org/en/docs/pyrefly-faq/#why-rust
> Not only is Pyrefly written in a new language (Rust instead of OCaml), but its design deviates in a major way from Pyre.
I'm sure you had reasons to do it this way. But given sufficient time to market, implementing the algorithm in pyre and then tooling/llm assisted conversion to pyrefly would've been preferable.
May be you'd have had some humans in the loop initially. But that tech is getting better and aligned with the direction Meta and the rest of the industry are taking.
Yes, I'm biased :)
> tooling/llm assisted conversion to pyrefly would've been preferable
Is this how it is now? Not the first time I hear this brainrot idea.
Its probably cool n' all but fb isnt getting any of my attention. They'd need to come up with AGI for that to happen, and even then I'd shrug it off.
I agree. I simply can't support anything Mark Zuckerberg does at this point.
This is an open source developer tooling project, not a product which Zuckerberg had anything to do with. What's the point of ignoring it?
Guilt by association is very in vogue these days
These talented engineers could take their skills elsewhere. That's the message.
And make so much less money
Money isn't everything. We only invented capitalism a few centuries ago.
Money is pretty much the only thing that matters nowadays.
> Why we built Pyrefly: Back in 2017, we embarked on a mission to create a type checker that could handle Instagram’s massive codebase of typed Python
They're saying this on fb.com. How does it not have anything to do with fb?
The feedback section takes you to fb's github.
what if they pull off the metaverse? ;)
ok that would be impressive, " no no we're not interested in AGI -- we want to become god "
ofcourse it has it rewritten in rust.
Sounds like a project that is trying to solve too many things at once ...
This is very cool but why wouldn’t they just contribute to uv and ruff and ty https://github.com/astral-sh/ty
I think astral and meta were both working on their own type-checkers independently. My current understanding is that meta released so they could preempt the initial release of ty. It seems like they're a bit further ahead in development. Not sure if there are going to be any real differences between the two down the line.
I think they've mentioned earlier that it's really just because PyCon is this week (so a good time to announce new Python tooling).
Sounds a lot like TypeScript and Flow.
Sure, but in this case they are both implementations of a spec defined by PEPs, so a bit more like gcc vs clang (less tightly bound than those, of course, in design decisions). Neither company is trying to invent a new language here.
The current major type checkers, mypy and pyright, are also based on the same PEPs, but you can still see differences between them. For example, my codebase passes pyright in strict mode, but mypy results in a bunch of type errors. I'd expect pyrefly and ty to be slightly different from each other.
See also:
https://github.com/microsoft/pyright/blob/main/docs/mypy-com...
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/python/typ...
the specs are still evolving, and the various type checker implementations are what is driving them forward. in general, capturing the dynamic typing semantics of python in a gradually typed system is not a fully solved problem, and the type checkers are experimenting with various approaches to it.
Typescript was Microsoft though. Meta might have the edge here based on brand awareness, but who knows for sure.
Right, and Flow was FB
That's sort of how I felt about things before, but the reality I believe is we wouldn't have uv if they 'just contributed to poetry'.
I tend to agree.
I don't know the differences between the two well enough to know if it was the case here, but in my experience sometimes you need to innovate on a fork, or from scratch in order to create the space/freedom to do so.
Once a project is popular, it's harder to justify and be confident about major changes (aka https://m.xkcd.com/1172/)
It seems like the share a lot of the same goals but my impression is Poetry is much slower to pick up on standards. It’s normal to use uv with a project now that doesn’t have any [tool.uv] section in pyproject.toml at all but every poetry project I’ve seen is littered with [poetry] sections, even dependencies. Makes me not want to use it
ty is so new right now - it only got its current name a few weeks ago!
That’s not true, they have been developing it as red knot for a good while :)
Like I said, it only got its name a few weeks ago.
I just ran ty and it can't resolve any imports whereas pyrefly passes. Why would that be? I hate Python so much.
I love the language, but I do hate the import system too, it makes everything harder
ty doesn't invoke a Python interpreter to discover imports yet — so you need to either set `VIRTUAL_ENV` or pass `--python` to configure your target environment. We'll expand support here in the future, but this part of ty's interface is intentionally minimal while we focus on core type checking features.
> I hate Python so much.
Look I get that it's frustrating, but the tool you're whinging about is literally pre-alpha.
NIH + copyright
Isn't both this and ty MIT license?
Because this has been tested at Meta / Facebook scale which means it's faster for any Python codebase massive and small.
Since Meta built this, I have confidence this will be maintained more than others and I will use this and ask for Pyrefly experience in the future.
I suggest you try uv and ruff and then see if you still think only companies the size of meta can provide quality tooling.
This feels like a somewhat closed minded approach given both tools are in their infancy
To repeat an earlier comment of mine from the launch of uv on hn (tl; dr: these new type checkers never support django):
The way these type checkers get fast is usually by not supporting the crazy rich reality of realworld python code.
The reason we're stuck on mypy at work is because it's the only type checker that has a plugin for Django that properly manages to type check its crazy runtime generated methods.
I wish more python tooling took the TS approach of "what's in the wild IS the language", as opposed to a "we only typecheck the constructs we think you SHOULD be using".
1. Maybe it's time to drop the crazy runtime generation and have something statically discoverable, or at least a way to annotate the typing statically.
2. Astral indicated already they plan to just add direct support for Django and other popular languages.
3. As people replied to similar comments on the previous threads (maybe to you?): that's not why ty is fast and why mypy is slow. It's also an easy claim to disprove: run both without plugins and you'll see ty is still 100x+ faster.
> 1. Maybe it's time to drop the crazy runtime generation and have something statically discoverable, or at least a way to annotate the typing statically.
That, and duck typing, are one of the biggest things that make Python what it is. If I have to drop all that for type checking and rewrite my code, why would I rewrite it in Python?
Having used Python for many years, it’s the least interesting aspect of the language. Almost all such tricks can be done with compile time meta programming, often even without API changes.
I'd like to read a blog post on this subject, if anyone knows one.
I don’t know about a blog post, but I mean the obvious stuff like codegen, generics/templates or macros to achieve the same things Python does by being dynamic.
Almost no one actually uses eval/exec.
Not only duck types (ie structural type hierarchies) can be statically verified but they can be statically infered as well, as demonstrated for instance by ocaml since 1996.
"Here is a nickel, kid, get yourself a better programming language" :-p
these are two different issues. supporting django involves adding a special-case module that essentially replicates its code generation and then adds that to the type-level view of the code. pyrefly or ty could do that and would still be just as fast. my guess is that once they have the basic python type checker as close to 100% as they can, they will start looking at custom modules for various popular metaprogramming libraries, or add enough of a plugin framework that the community can contribute them.
source: spent several years working on a python type checker
The problem is not with the type checkers.
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32759
Similar (but lesser) problems exist with pydantic and sqlmodel. They're both fine projects except for:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/1i5atpy/fquery_meet...
This is a long winded way of saying type checkers will deal with:
a lot better. Move what doesn't fit here to dataclass metadata.TS has the luxury of being its own distinct language, defining its own semantics and having its own compiler. You could have something like that targeting Python.
The only type checker that fully works (meaning it successfully performs the necessary type inference all for inherited objects) for our large and highly modular python codebase, is Pycharm (I'm guessing it's their own custom tool from the ground up? Not really sure, actually.)
[dead]
how does this compare to mypy
non AI IDEs are going to have a hard time in the future.
Unsure how this comment is relevant
I lost all interest when I saw VS Code. I don’t get why people consider this a suitable IDE for python when you can have a real IDE like PyCharm.
What can you do in PyCharm that you cannot do in VS Code? I recently switched from PyCharm to VS Code to maintain a project with 250k LoC in Python (Django) and VS Code has been like a breath of fresh air. While you may need to install some plugins to get it "just right", it's more extensible. PyCharm is more "batteries included", and maybe that's the rub here.
pyrefly is not tied to vscode? Also please try to be more considerate of people preferences, and pycharm is not strictly better. Remote dev on vscode is very convenient for me, should I go on the Internet saying that pycharm is trash? No
I’m not saying VS Code is trash but I think it’s closer to a text editor than an IDE. I even use it for some things non python but I remain curious to the fact why people use it for python.
It might not be tied to VS Code but the title clearly says “New […] IDE experience for…” which is why I commented. I had hoped to see something for PyCharm or even a new IDE.
Thats what you think, other people think something else.
fortunately the LSP protocol means you can use pyrefly with whatever ide or editor you like!