Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Writing Python like it's Rust

kobzol.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 369 posts

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#171

Post by vorticalbox »

switch007 wrote: post #141
frodowtf wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With Typescript I have nothing comparable to Django.

It’s mad how there isn’t a Django clone in the JS world. They just stitch together half finished, buggy ORMs, migration tools and web frameworks? After all this time? Something like Django requires focus and concerted effort over a period of many years, so I guess it makes sense. I get the impression JS devs would rather have a new framework with bugs and cool emojis in the commits than something more stable and less…

In just world it's more focused on nestjs and angularjs.

At work we are moving to nestjs and I love it.

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#172

Post by d0mine »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #102

At some point you gotta ask yourself: Why am I still writing Python then, if I want to write Rust? If I want Rust's safety, why not write Rust then, with battle proven tools and better type system from the start? Often the answer to this question unfortunately is not a technological merit, but knowledge of a team and willingness to learn. You might want to write actual Rust code and there can be any number of benefit…

Because Python enables faster iterations. By the time you manage to produce a Rust program that even compiles, you can do several edits with tests in Python.

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#173

Post by loeg »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #76

Lots of comments here are stating that typing is half baked in Python, and that if you gotta use types, you should use another language. But that's missing the point that Python is still not meant to be the best at anything, but good at most things. And in this case, it's exactly what you get: optional typing, with decent safety if you need it. You can quick script or design seriously, you can explore in a shell or c…

You are allowed to include more than once sentence in a paragraph here. It would substantially improve your comment.

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#174

Post by sidlls »

leetrout wrote: post #159
sidlls wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some pros: * Go is "simple" (the language has a "small surface area", if you will) * Go has a broad and deep standard library that is generally well-documented * Go comes with a reasonably good general-purpose build tool (it builds, formats code for you, runs tests, etc.) Some cons: * Go's structural subtyping is a pretty terrible approach to handling the problem it's meant to solve. It's not quite as bad as a runtim…

> Go's handling of dependencies...leaves something to be desired Can you give specifics? I think publishing module versions as entire subtrees is very verbose and can be cumbersome but otherwise enjoy everything about Go modules. I find most peoples complaints are that its not like

That it's not like npm, pip, or maven is a plus in my view: I despise all three of them.

I don't like the proxy system at all. It is not, in fact, easy to set up a private proxy that "just works." Also, it is quite trivial to have "sync" issues with the go.mod and go.sum files that manage/"lock" dependencies. `go mod tidy`, `clean -modcache`, etc., are required far too often. And it has the same problem with dependencies-of-dependencies that python does. It leads to bloat and sometimes inconsistent behaviors in applications.

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#175

Post by ptx »

oofsa wrote: post #155
arcanemachiner wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just did some highly unscientific spelunking on the topic a couple hours ago, and my takeaway was more or less that a bunch of people on reddit said pyright was better.

You may already know this, but Pyright and Pylance are the same thing. "Under the hood, Pylance is powered by Pyright," https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-pytho... I've been using Pylance with `"python.analysis.typeCheckingMode": "basic"` for a long time and have found it quite good. Most of the time, the problem isn't Pylance/Pyright, but poor or wrong type annotations in third-party libraries.

Maybe they produce the same results (I don't know), but Pylance using Pyright doesn't mean that Pylance is Pyright.

One important difference in this case is that while "Pylance leverages Microsoft's open-source static type checking tool, Pyright" [1], Pylance itself is not open source. In fact, the license [2] restricts you to "use [...] the software only with [...] Microsoft products and services", which means that you are not allowed to use it with a non-Microsoft open source fork of VS Code, for example.

The license terms also say that by accepting the license, you agree that "The software may collect information about you and your use of the software, and send that to Microsoft" and that "You may opt-out of many of these scenarios, but not all".

[1] https://github.com/microsoft/pylance-release

[2] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items/ms-python.vscode-...

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#176

Post by BiteCode_dev »

pharmakom wrote: post #146
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. First, the JS ecosystem is very web oriented, so if you want to dabble out of there, you often gonna fall short. Secondly, the JS packaging has very poor support for compiled extensions, which mean everything that needs a perf boosts is unlikely to get good quality treatments. Finally, the community makes it a constant moving target. After 20 years of writing both JS and Python, I can still install old dj…

Python has really poor support for compiled extensions. I know this sounds weird to say, given that they are used everywhere, but this is the number one pain point in Python. It’s really awkward to say, develop on Mac and deploy on Linux.

That's a characteristic of the language you write the extension in, not Python.

E.G, if you use, rust, through maturin, cross platform compilation is pretty decent: https://www.maturin.rs/distribution.html

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#177

Post by jeremyjh »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #162
orthoxerox wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point you gotta ask yourself: Why am I still writing Python then, if I want to write Rust? If I want Rust's safety, why not write Rust then, with battle proven tools and better type system from the start? Garbage collection

To what end? I think avoiding manual memory management is great, but I never had issues in Rust either, since I don't manage memory manually there either. I think that is kind of a point of Rust, as it avoids that whole class of bugs common in C programs. But to what end do you want garbage collection (GC)? Just for having GC? Or a more specific purpose, that is difficult to attain with Rust's model? For example: I u…

GC is nice because you don’t have to constantly think about ownership and lifetimes.

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#178

Post by pharmakom »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #176
pharmakom wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python has really poor support for compiled extensions. I know this sounds weird to say, given that they are used everywhere, but this is the number one pain point in Python. It’s really awkward to say, develop on Mac and deploy on Linux.

That's a characteristic of the language you write the extension in, not Python. E.G, if you use, rust, through maturin, cross platform compilation is pretty decent: https://www.maturin.rs/distribution.html

I’m talking about the ecosystem. I was unable to get a small Python project with some mainstream native libraries to compile for Linux on a macOS host without Docker.

This works far better in Rust, for example.

Of course if Python wasn’t so dog slow we wouldn’t need so many native packages.

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#179

Post by agumonkey »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #76

Lots of comments here are stating that typing is half baked in Python, and that if you gotta use types, you should use another language. But that's missing the point that Python is still not meant to be the best at anything, but good at most things. And in this case, it's exactly what you get: optional typing, with decent safety if you need it. You can quick script or design seriously, you can explore in a shell or c…

who's using hypothesis these days ? or any advanced testing paradigm even.

Re: Writing Python like it's Rust

#180

Post by anthomtb »

pharmakom wrote: post #146
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. First, the JS ecosystem is very web oriented, so if you want to dabble out of there, you often gonna fall short. Secondly, the JS packaging has very poor support for compiled extensions, which mean everything that needs a perf boosts is unlikely to get good quality treatments. Finally, the community makes it a constant moving target. After 20 years of writing both JS and Python, I can still install old dj…

Python has really poor support for compiled extensions. I know this sounds weird to say, given that they are used everywhere, but this is the number one pain point in Python. It’s really awkward to say, develop on Mac and deploy on Linux.

Might I ask what scripting-like language does have good support for compiled extensions? Such that you can easily develop on Mac and deploy on Linux?

Because it seems to me that once you compile something you are in the awkward world of ABI and CPU differences. And binary portability has been a paint point of programmers since before I was born (and I'm not that young).

So if there is a programming language that neatly gets around this problem, me and a lot of other folks would really like to know about it.

Post reply on HN