Why is it useful for maps to be sorted by insertion order?
It makes execution reproducible.
Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
11–20 of 48 posts
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#12Why is it useful for maps to be sorted by insertion order?
I guess if you want a pseudo map/list where ordering matters? But truth is semantics of a 'map' have no implicit ordering (at least mathematically). The fact some languages offer this as a convenience is great but its hardly fair to complain about languages that do not.
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#13So the author is sad because Python 3.8 fixes things... too late for their taste? And they, "as an author of another programming language" would've known better and never made these "mistakes" to begin with? Get off your high horse.
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#14Meh another shit-post for some clout.
Disagreement with post doesn’t make it shit. Diversity of opinions is great. But calling the post shit instead of providing any arguments definitely does not make a constructive helpful discussion. Such comments are just noise.
I think parent is using “shit-post” to describe a negative post.
Like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#15Why is it useful for maps to be sorted by insertion order?
However the author did not mention stable order does not come for free. It is not a trivial decision to make, between ordered and unordered dicts.
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#16 “Somebody” ignored the wisdom of Lisp, which was
“everything is an expression and evaluates to a value”
(no statements vs expressions), and made assignment a
statement in Python years ago.
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#17Why is it useful for maps to be sorted by insertion order?
It makes execution reproducible.
Almost any hash table implementation will give the same iteration order for the same sequence of insertions and deletions across program executions. So this would already be true even if the order was not the insertion order.
Golang starts iterations in a random position each run to prevent people from relying on the ordering.
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#18I get why a CI/CD approach is taken with modern languages but you can't revert changes with programmimg languages like you can with APIs. My view is, long-term supported new features are fine but deprecation of existing features and code breaking changes should be constrained to a major version change (like 2.7 -> 3) and that should happen at most once in a decade.
I wish more programmers that work outside of the tech industry would contribute to these discussions.
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagreement with post doesn’t make it shit. Diversity of opinions is great. But calling the post shit instead of providing any arguments definitely does not make a constructive helpful discussion. Such comments are just noise.
I think parent is using “shit-post” to describe a negative post. Like this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shitposting
Does not look obviously negative to me.
Thank you for the link though.
Re: Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes execution reproducible.
Almost any hash table implementation will give the same iteration order for the same sequence of insertions and deletions across program executions. So this would already be true even if the order was not the insertion order. Golang starts iterations in a random position each run to prevent people from relying on the ordering.
Not “almost any”. Good hashtables intentionally mix random numbers into hashes to prevent DOS attacks. And also, even if hashtables are stable, the hashes of the objects might not be (depend on the addresses for example).