221–230 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is in Rust this is totally ok. Is NOT un-idiomatic to mix imperative + functional paradigms in the same block.
The first version isn't what I'd write in a purely functional language either, a recursive version would be much saner. Isn't recursion idiomatic in rust?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hah, it took me and a bunch of other people in the Rust discord a fair amount of time to figure out how to get the first example to compile correctly in the first place, and I find the “transpose()” business to be particularly convoluted. I think even Rust people would prefer the imperative version. I also suspect there’s some hindsight benefit at play in that it’s easier to make sense of the first snippet than it wa…
Honestly the closure + `transpose` is really ugly as sin. I had to do a double take and reason through the steps which you took to get that particular snippet (while not reading the imperative one).
> Dev velocity, which was supposed to be the claim to fame of Python, improved dramatically with Rust. I don't doubt this in the least. I've been a professional Python developer for 15 years, and I can't believe Python ever had the reputation for "high dev velocity" beyond toy examples. In every real world code base I've worked in, Python has been a strict liability and the promise that you can "just rewrite the slow…
This is arguably true for small scripts, but for anything non-trivial I find that static typing means I can be more productive, because type errors are caught straight away (rather than potentially in production), and I can be much more confident in refactoring code because I know certain kinds of errors will be caught by during type checking. This doesn't remove the need for automated testing, but does reduce the number of test cases you have to write.
Things have improved a lot in the Python ecosystem of late with the introduction of type annotations and mypy, so to the extent possible I treat Python as if it's a statically typed language, putting type annotations everywhere and always making sure the codebase passes type checking before pushing a commit.
However, the fact that this is optional sadly means that not everyone does it, and if you're working with parts of a codebase written without this level of discipline, you're basically back to square one. I've come to the conclusion that for medium to large projects, dynamic typing encourages sloppy programming, because it doesn't force people to think as carefully about what exactly their data types are, and whether they're being used correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually don't care as much for iterators as I thought I would. Beyond some simpler map().reduce() stuff they tend to fall over pretty fast, and I end up spending too much time trying to make iterator chains work before defaulting to for loops. I also dislike how anemic Rust's stdlib is. I'm sure there are good reasons, but I like that I can just reach for Go's stdlib for annotating errors or dealing with JSON. Oth…
Now, compare a parallel version of both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say in this case it's more the API designers' fault than Go's fault. Looks like the Python API is operating at a higher abstraction level than the Go API - using the Python API you can just call a "macro" that does everything required, in Go you have to call each operation individually.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is in Rust this is totally ok. Is NOT un-idiomatic to mix imperative + functional paradigms in the same block.
Agreed, but I think people make too big a deal about iterators. The simple for loops that they’re fit to replace aren’t that hard to read or write, so they aren’t causing real problems, and on the more complex end you’re writing imperative stuff anyway. Iterators certainly aren’t a bad thing, but they’re not the game changer that Go-critics made them out to be in all of the Rust-vs-Go debates.
I may just have more time to dick around, but I've been forcing myself to write everything as an iterator in Rust (instead of a for loop) just to learn the paradigm and, honestly, it's been pretty great.
First, there is a performance impact. You may think this would be small, but, in my experience, it can be relatively large. There must be several reasons of which I am ignorant, but they probably include mutable no alias inside closures, bounds check elision, etc.
Second, there is a mutability advantage to just using filter/flatten/map/collect for 90% of your use cases.
Third, the more advanced iterator methods will cover the other 5-10% of your use cases, and will make your code much easier to read, once you understand how to use them (if you're trying to learning something/anything more complex at the same time, save your brain power!). I don't have a single traditional for loop in my personal projects.
My take on iterators is, for iterator/Rust beginners (like me!/perhaps not you) -- the best way to learn is to get it working as imperative code, and when you have the time, go back a rewrite as an iterator. In the beginning, it's super frustrating. But you'll get better and better and, after awhile, you'll much, much prefer writing as an iterator. You won't even think of using a for loop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Most startups that YC has funded that became successful (Series B or higher) were written in Python or Ruby. Now you can say that this is a tradeoff for post Series B, and for that I don't know. I've never worked on a massive Python mono-repo for a company that size. But I know what I've done in Python and, yes, it includes performance optimization in Numpy / Scipy / Cython, and other than Ruby, no other…
> I disagree. > Most startups that YC has funded that became successful (Series B or higher) were written in Python or Ruby. It depends on what your goal is. If you want to get rich off of VC money, Python and Ruby might be a good fit. If you, on the other hand, want to write good, performant, maintenable and (relatively) bug-free software, then there are better choices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Docker is built with Go. Compare doing things with Docker api between Go and Python. I usually recommend people to "script" things with Go but I start to think that Go has to go... https://docs.docker.com/engine/api/sdk/examples/
I would say in this case it's more the API designers' fault than Go's fault. Looks like the Python API is operating at a higher abstraction level than the Go API - using the Python API you can just call a "macro" that does everything required, in Go you have to call each operation individually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. If I can avoid an index variable, I’m going to have less bugs since I won’t have to index.
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to deal with index variables in a for loop: for item in iterator { vector.push_back(foo(item)); } You're not explicitly indexing the source iterator or the destination vector at any point.
> Dev velocity, which was supposed to be the claim to fame of Python, improved dramatically with Rust. I don't doubt this in the least. I've been a professional Python developer for 15 years, and I can't believe Python ever had the reputation for "high dev velocity" beyond toy examples. In every real world code base I've worked in, Python has been a strict liability and the promise that you can "just rewrite the slow…
Dev velocity in Rust is directly proportional to how well you grok lifetimes and ownership.