11–20 of 231 posts
I say this as a happy Python user. Ruby seems very similar but I'm reminded of a pg essay on language power: looking up the power curve, you see '$Language plus a bit of weird stuff that is probably irrelevant.' So I don't trust myself.
As someone who loves Python and doesn't know any Ruby beyond a few bits of syntax and the obvious bits that are common to most languages, what am I missing?
As a commenter on the article wrote: what about Ruby? I say this as a happy Python user. Ruby seems very similar but I'm reminded of a pg essay on language power: looking up the power curve, you see '$Language plus a bit of weird stuff that is probably irrelevant.' So I don't trust myself. As someone who loves Python and doesn't know any Ruby beyond a few bits of syntax and the obvious bits that are common to most la…
I work with python daily. I find that when I first started I avoid a lot of the "fancy" constructs such as list comprehensions, dynamic arguments, and decorators as well as meta programming. The great thing is the bar to being effective in the language is so low. You can pretty much pick up most python code and just read it and get a general feel for what it does. Not only that but it is much easier to read because o…
I find a great way to avoid deep nesting is to move code to functions, and bail out when some conditions are not met. As an example, this deeply nested code: def frob(someargs): if something > 2: ... # do some processing if that == "CONNECT": ... # some more processing if verdict in blessedsolutions: ... # even more processing print "Happy birthday!" I tend to write like this: def frob(someargs): if something I do th…
Such complicated control flows should be treated as a major, fundamental problem. Keeping them in place will cause bugs and prevent future contributors from having confidence that their changes are correct. The problem of complicated control flow is too deep to be solved with a band-aid like this, although perhaps syntactically it looks a bit nicer. In fact, this is exactly what people did before the so-called "structured programming adepts" came around, except using gotos instead of continues. It didn't work so well back then, and it doesn't work so well now.
It feels a bit like Python is better for programming beginners or people that tend to be too lazy sometimes and Perl is for people who want to be able to be lazier since they know what they are doing.
Also, I think Python (and most other language projects) should clone CPAN (including CPAN testers). Seriously it's a major deficit.
I also think Python is the easiest to grasp for people coming from static languages. Perl and Ruby are way harder.
But lately I have been having an internal debate on whether using autodoc and inline docstrings detracts from its beauty and makes it harder to read because it reduces the amount of code you can see on the screen (see Steve Yegge's rant on this http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2008/02/portrait-of-n00b.htm... from a few years back).
If you use Sphinx to document a method's description, params, param types, and return type, then it can easily turn a three-line method into a 12 line method, and then you can only see ~5 methods on the screen at a time.
So if the code is already readable, would it not be better to put the docstring comments in an external file to keep the code density?
Django does this, and I'm starting to think it's the right balance.
I like Python the language, but the standard library can often annoy me as there is no unified style. thereAreMethodsLikeThis or_there_are_methods_like_this orevenworsefullylowercase. Gah.
However I have used Python also for big projects and that is where its gets a little messy. I know I am going to get down-voted to kingdom come but I think Java is a better language for big projects mostly because of the static typing (try renaming a class in Python compared to Java).
Modern Java is for sure more verbose than Python and more complicated but the languages are extremely similar (Guido has even take some of the design consistency from Java for Python 3.0).
The reason I bring it up is Java is very often in various circles crapped on to no end. The reality its basically just more verbose Python. Not to mention Java offers an introduction to Parametric/algebraic typing (generics) and more sophisticated concurrency (futures ... yes actors are better but python really has neither).