61–70 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess the answer is - Google. As it used Python and the word was out. Also, Python had been released a few years earlier and so was adopted by universities.
From my perspective, it was the was the ipython notebook (now jupyter) that was the killer app leading to Python being adopted for data science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’ll never understand how Python became the more widely appreciated language IMO syntax is a major factor. Python looks like pseudocode, while Ruby looks like Perl.
Genuinely curious, what makes Python look more like pseudocode? The use of colons? Regardless, I’ve always thought that Ruby is more like pseudocode because with Ruby, I’m able to worry less about syntax and more about what I’m trying to do. Maybe it’s just me?
I used to think it was significant indentation, but if you look at the pseudocode on e.g. Wikipedia, there is no significant preference for either whitespace or begin/end.
Therefore, it’s probably things like `if value in my_map` vs `if my_map.contains(value)` and `[x * 2 for x in my_list]` vs `my_list.map(x -> x * 2)`.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"it's called non-leaky abstraction" Is there such thing?
Sure. Math based abstractions are non-leaky. This is one of the main thing FP people rave about. Eg. map works without bias on all functors regardless whether the concrete thing is a list or a tree or an IO action, etc...
(I agree that math abstractions are less leaky than others, of course)
...semi off-topic, but man, how I wish Ruby had won the hearts of data-science and machine-learning practitioners instead of Python or R! It looks like such a wonderful and extensible and programmer friendly language compared to all the others in the "multi-purpose dynamic 'scripting' languages class". Every time I read Ruby code it almost puts a smile on my face, it seems such a joy to write and think in, so sad it…
Agreed... I can write typical data-wrangling code at close to the speed of typing in ruby. In Python it takes forever, and I notice how every fibre of my soul tries to avoid even looking at it, much less enjoying and wanting to learn. But it didn't turn out that way. And since people using Python don't strike me as particularly stupid or anything, there must be something about that language I'm still missing, or it w…
See I can say the same thing in reverse. I suspect it's just frustrating that once you know one of the two well, the other just dosen't do enough different to be worth learning as much. They have plenty of differences in the specifics but they're incredible similar in the domains they shine in. Similarly between Java and C#.
Add to that the fact that Python is now so established and used so many domains that the package availability that it attracts so many more people as a first language.
That said, I do do have reasons I prefer python, though I doubt they're solely why it "won". Idiomatic Python is just much clearer and more straight forward for most. They explicitly spent time to minimize how many language concepts and constructs you need to get basic things done. Compare:
some_list.each do |this_item| puts this_time end
for this_item in some_list: print(this_time)
The syntax/grammar are often more regular, use keywords and fewer symbols, and optional bits. Python went through a heavy monkey-patching phase (that's all but rejected now) but never went full blown DSL-style like Ruby. I'd say they both gained popularity being fun to write languages but Python stayed a but more balanced in readability.
ps: parens are better on function calls. fight me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely curious, what makes Python look more like pseudocode? The use of colons? Regardless, I’ve always thought that Ruby is more like pseudocode because with Ruby, I’m able to worry less about syntax and more about what I’m trying to do. Maybe it’s just me?
> Genuinely curious, what makes Python look more like pseudocode? The use of colons? I used to think it was significant indentation, but if you look at the pseudocode on e.g. Wikipedia, there is no significant preference for either whitespace or begin/end. Therefore, it’s probably things like `if value in my_map` vs `if my_map.contains(value)` and `[x * 2 for x in my_list]` vs `my_list.map(x -> x * 2)`.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely curious, what makes Python look more like pseudocode? The use of colons? Regardless, I’ve always thought that Ruby is more like pseudocode because with Ruby, I’m able to worry less about syntax and more about what I’m trying to do. Maybe it’s just me?
> Genuinely curious, what makes Python look more like pseudocode? The use of colons? I used to think it was significant indentation, but if you look at the pseudocode on e.g. Wikipedia, there is no significant preference for either whitespace or begin/end. Therefore, it’s probably things like `if value in my_map` vs `if my_map.contains(value)` and `[x * 2 for x in my_list]` vs `my_list.map(x -> x * 2)`.
- `if my_map.contains(value)` is nice and consistent, easy to search for the code of the .contains method and figure out what it does
- `[x * 2 for x in my_list]` another ugly special case syntax, instead of general purpose higher order functions, even in Python while a `.map` method could've been easily added to dictionaries too, we had to wait years (decades?) for dictionary comprehensions to land in the language, and it's another damn special syntax one has to remember. ugh! - a sane solution not involving higher order functions usage would've been to make everything in the language an expression and have `for ...` expressions return lists or dictionaries or sets, still better than the fugly "list comprehension", I really can't comprehend why people like them
- `my_list.map(x -> x * 2)` nice, clean, and general. If I work with a weirder list like thingy and want to see the logic of mapping, I can easily jump to the definition of it's `.map` method
Most pseudocode is ugly and ambiguous and actually hard to read without special context from the text around it because you're never sure what something actually means, can't easily "jump to its implementation code and read it". Same like natural language, hard to non-ambiguously understand and ugly as hell in technical context where math and diagrams work 1000x times better.
I can't understand why people who are trained in math, physics and/or other sciences would ever choose something just because it "looks more like pseudocode"... To me pseudocode rhymes with... pseudoscience! It's never what you want when you can choose something better.
...semi off-topic, but man, how I wish Ruby had won the hearts of data-science and machine-learning practitioners instead of Python or R! It looks like such a wonderful and extensible and programmer friendly language compared to all the others in the "multi-purpose dynamic 'scripting' languages class". Every time I read Ruby code it almost puts a smile on my face, it seems such a joy to write and think in, so sad it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imo, python won because the community does not condone monkey-patching and dark magic tricks. it's totally possible, yes, but it is frown up. i just realized how important language communities are, actually! i, unlike GP, do not get a smile on my face when i read ruby code full of implicit tricks. even when i understand some of them, it is still annoying. why don't people just write clear, explicit, maintainable code…
> I am sure method_missing could be implemented in python using various tricks but nobody, afaik, is doing that. You could probably implement method_missing in Python using either __getattribute__ or __getattr__. I think this is a small example of why nobody is doing so. It’s not just culture - Python’s object model is so complex that it would be hard to get right. > why don't people just write clear, explicit, maint…
Exactly! Python is flexible too... using module import hooks and AST transformations you can even implement common-lisp-style-macros... but the language and model is so darn messy and special-case-y that it would blow up in your face if you tried to use it in a real world project :|
Whereas in Ruby you can whip up a nice clean DSL in no time, and people can actually understand how it's implemented and read it's source without being gurus. Whereas the number of Python programmers who properly understand metaclasses and AST wrangling and other stuff you'd need to do DSL-like stuff and have it work correctly can be counted on not that many fingers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same! I never used Rails much but did learn Ruby and used it a lot for the kind of stuff people tend to use Python for nowadays. Data crunching, prototyping, sciency stuff.. It's excellent for that. I mean, Ruby is so much more elegant and consistent than Python, I'll never understand how Python became the more widely appreciated language of the two, especially with the effective head start that Ruby had through Rail…
> I’ll never understand how Python became the more widely appreciated language IMO syntax is a major factor. Python looks like pseudocode, while Ruby looks like Perl.
Also I think the mantra of "developer happiness is the #1 goal of ruby" kind of makes ruby seem a bit more fanciful and flowery than python.
These are just my personal anecdotes, though, I am assuming that most people (myself included) start eyeing seemingly superficial things like the attitude of the language author when a lot of other qualities of the language are similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed... I can write typical data-wrangling code at close to the speed of typing in ruby. In Python it takes forever, and I notice how every fibre of my soul tries to avoid even looking at it, much less enjoying and wanting to learn. But it didn't turn out that way. And since people using Python don't strike me as particularly stupid or anything, there must be something about that language I'm still missing, or it w…
> I can write typical data-wrangling code at close to the speed of typing in ruby. In Python it takes forever, and I notice how every fibre of my soul tries to avoid even looking at it, much less enjoying and wanting to learn. See I can say the same thing in reverse. I suspect it's just frustrating that once you know one of the two well, the other just dosen't do enough different to be worth learning as much. They ha…
> for this_item in some_list: print(this_time)
Just a nitpick:
for one liners you can write:
some_list.each { |this_time| puts this_time }