Python's Protocol Annotation vs. Duck Typing

Let's talk about profound confusion.

I got an email with a subject of this, "Python's Protocol Reduces Reliance on Duck Typing". The resulting conversation led to this nugget: "... my current project could use protocols in Python, and thus I didn't need to rely on duck typing and instead could use that as my type."

I'm unclear on what "reliance" really meant here.

Python depends (heavily) on duck typing. Because type annotations are optional, this cannot change. It's unlikely to ever change.

Here's the bottom line: Duck Typing Won't Go Away.

Indeed, there's more: Duck Typing Isn't Bad.

Python doesn't "rely" on the type annotations. They're a bonus feature to make sure you aren't lying about the types and how they're used.

Protocols are how duck typing works. When we leverage duck typing among classes, we're implicitly relying on the classes all supporting a common protocol. Numbers, for example, implement a ton of methods; this collection of common methods (e.g., __add__(), etc.) define a protocol.

With mypy, we can create our own distinct protocols as named types.

I don't get the "reducing reliance" business when protocols make duck typing work. And. Sadly. I couldn't figure out where the confusion arose.

class Something:
    def useful_method(self, x: str) -> int:
        # whatever

class CloselyRelated:
    def useful_method(self, x: str) -> int:
        # another polymorphic thing

Polymorphic = Union[Something, CloselyRelated]

# many classes and functions relying on Polymorphic

class Polymorphic(Protocol):
    def useful_method(self, x: str) -> int:
        ...