371–380 of 733 posts
I've only used python for scripts and such and pandas for data-analysis at my last job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For my personal use case at least, this timeline worked out well for me. Hint for Hacker News commenters: 99% of the time, if your phrase includes the term "use case", you can safely just delete it and lose no meaning. It's just a way to say "for me" or "for them" that sounds more technical but really isn't. In this case, you could say "This timeline worked out well for me".
Same with 'utilize' -> 'use'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This x 1000. “The free libraries we chose to depend upon haven’t migrated.” Do you have programmers? “Of course.” Put them to work. “We have other priorities.” Well then. Your choice, your outcome.
This attitude is ridiculous. I'm supposed to go and tell all the various projects that I depend on that they have to change their upgrade timescales to suit mine? Even if I had enough time to help them all meet that kind of timescale, why would they agree to fit their changes into my required deadline? Maintainers are under a lot of pressure. Having users come along and say "we'll add 50 developers to your project if…
Still better than my last programming job where the vendor of a vital piece of HW had provided a C++ API (also vital), but refused to provide dlls that would work in anything newer than VS2010. At least with open source you can do something about it.
Python 2 to 3 (at least by 3.3 or so) was one of the easiest transitions I've ever done. There's a library ("six") to help, and in almost all cases you can write 2-and-3 compatible code, which means you can go piece-by-piece. (Unless your manager makes drive-by commits of py2-only code, months after you all agreed that all new code should be py3-compatible, and then leaves town for a multi-week vacation...) Dependenc…
One of the easiest compared to what? Certainly not a Python point release. A couple of points: 1. Python core dev pretended Python 3 was good and ready by, like, 3.1. It wasn't. 2. While your problem may have been painless (I'm glad), that doesn't mean that everyone who complained was just complaining. (I use Python 3 as the default now, but as someone intimately involved with an async IO library at the time it came…
Just let it go...
That's why Python receives a bad name, and for a good reason. Nobody is telling people who use Java since version 1 that they need to upgrade code if they want to continue using the language. The code just works, and will continue to work as long as there are compilers for Java. The same thing about C and C++, these languages introduce new features as times evolve, but they still allow users to retain their investmen…
Some of their “bad” designs were made decades ago, before it was even clear where the industry was going. Take Unicode: lots of bets were made on that, and arguably Windows got it way wrong. Sure their APIs are still “compatible” but what is that worth, when strings are an inconsistent mess that to this day require developer hacks? And that’s an OS people pay for, written by competent engineers as well.
If you don’t like your free software, please feel free not to use it anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, "for me" and "for my use case" mean subtly but genuinely different things. "For me" highlights the fact that my preferences, character, skills, etc., are different from other people's. Something might work well for me but badly for someone else because I happen to be good at working around its quirks, or bad at noticing its faults, or just not interested in the things it doesn't do. "For my use case" highlight…
Corparate-speak that makes its way into common language is frequently justified post-hoc by subtle differences in meaning like the ones you allude to. The problem is that these differences are personal and subjective. Ask someone else, they might have a different answer. I have had the same discussion multiple times over the equally meaningless and inelegant "going forward". "Use case" comes from 90s software enginee…
I can think of countless annoying corporate buzzwords I see all the time on HN or at my job which are totally opaque and useless. "Use case" is two simple English words which anyone, including non-tech people, uses and clearly understands. This is not the hill to die on. I could link so many comments posted in the last week which are infinitely more buzzword-laden and irritating. If you really feel the dire necessity to chastise them, at least pick one of of those.
I do partly agree with you on "moving forward" or "going forward". I'm skeptical the situation was nearly as ambiguous as you suggest (it means "in the future", which is ambiguous, but it's no more ambiguous than saying "in the future", and anyone can easily request clarification if they hear "in the future"), but I had a few managers who said and wrote that like 30 times per day, and it does start to get on your nerves. Perhaps "use case" is similarly overused by some, but it also has a specific and clear meaning which would take longer to say/write than just using the term.
That's why Python receives a bad name, and for a good reason. Nobody is telling people who use Java since version 1 that they need to upgrade code if they want to continue using the language. The code just works, and will continue to work as long as there are compilers for Java. The same thing about C and C++, these languages introduce new features as times evolve, but they still allow users to retain their investmen…
One thing that confuses me about Python is just how many projects don't specify if the app is supposed to use 2 or 3, and the correct answer isn't 'either'. Check out something from Github, only to find I actually do need Python 2.7 or something. Is it that Python developers assume everyone will just intuit the version, or is there a default?
Rule of thumb is that no version == python2, either because it pre-dates 3 or because the developer's concept of python is "what happens when I type python at the shell" so it's still 2. It's often a big red flag about quality; competent Python developers find it natural to state py3 support upfront (or lack thereof) because they know it matters.
That's why Python receives a bad name, and for a good reason. Nobody is telling people who use Java since version 1 that they need to upgrade code if they want to continue using the language. The code just works, and will continue to work as long as there are compilers for Java. The same thing about C and C++, these languages introduce new features as times evolve, but they still allow users to retain their investmen…
>Nobody is telling people who use Java since version 1 that they need to upgrade code if they want to continue using the language. The code just works, and will continue to work as long as there are compilers for Java This is the same with Python. Python 2 code will continue to work with python 2 interpreters, just as java 1 code will continue to work with java 1 JVMs and JDKs. But neither are being actively develope…