811–820 of 993 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From personal experience, hiring for Ruby development seemed to get a lot harder and of the few candidates that applied, many couldn't do FizzBuzz.
I've been working since the 90s and I never attempted to do FizzBuzz. Is it really relevant? Maybe to screen junior developers out of college?
Holy Crap! What a lot of irrational, hyperbolic hate for Python. I think everybody should spend their first couple of years working in Fortran IV on IBM TSO/ISPF. No dependency management because you had to write everything yourself. Or maybe [edit: early 90's] C or C++ development where dependency management meant getting packages off a Usenet archive, uudecoding and compiling them yourself after tweaking the config…
People don't realize what a revelation Python 1.x was back in the day. Around 97 or so I was tasked with porting a giant mathematica program for calculation diffraction grating efficiencies into something which ran open source (there was no free mathematica engine for running scripts pack then). Back then, that meant either C or Fortran. Sure, stuff like Perl existed; nobody thought of it as a real interpreter that c…
I can't help but to gently interject here. By 1997, I'd been programming for some time, and there certainly were people who consider Perl suitable for programming in the large, and there were certainly big projects so written.
While I disagree with the specific word 'nobody', I agree with the sentiment: Perl was widely considered to be only useful for 'small' things at the time. Widely, but not exclusively.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure this is what they meant... def my_func(): group_keys = 'My thing' while group_keys == 'My Thing': if some_logic() == 42: groups_key = 'My other thing' # typo here
I don't see how that's avoidable in any language that doesn't require explicit variable declaration
Holy Crap! What a lot of irrational, hyperbolic hate for Python. I think everybody should spend their first couple of years working in Fortran IV on IBM TSO/ISPF. No dependency management because you had to write everything yourself. Or maybe [edit: early 90's] C or C++ development where dependency management meant getting packages off a Usenet archive, uudecoding and compiling them yourself after tweaking the config…
Here's some rational "hate" for Python then. I just returned to Python for the first time in a little while to collaborate on a side project and ran into a few tricky-to-debug errors that caused a fair bit of lost time. Know what the errors were? In one case, I was iterating over the contents of what was supposed to be a list, but in some rare circumstances could instead be a string. Instead of throwing a type error,…
There is no such thing in Python. You should get NameError if a name doesn't refer to any object.
>>> def f():
... name
...
>>> f()
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
File "", line 2, in f
NameError: name 'name' is not definedHoly Crap! What a lot of irrational, hyperbolic hate for Python. I think everybody should spend their first couple of years working in Fortran IV on IBM TSO/ISPF. No dependency management because you had to write everything yourself. Or maybe [edit: early 90's] C or C++ development where dependency management meant getting packages off a Usenet archive, uudecoding and compiling them yourself after tweaking the config…
Here's some rational "hate" for Python then. I just returned to Python for the first time in a little while to collaborate on a side project and ran into a few tricky-to-debug errors that caused a fair bit of lost time. Know what the errors were? In one case, I was iterating over the contents of what was supposed to be a list, but in some rare circumstances could instead be a string. Instead of throwing a type error,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree at all. Your comment basically says: "It used to suck badly. So don't complain it sucks now.". I think dynamic typing is the bane of good software and we as an industry should try to actively discourage new code to be written in dynamically typed languages. That's not to say that Python doesn't have it's place. But I see it more as a programming language for small utilities no more then 2k loc in length…
No, what I'm saying is that it used to suck really badly and we survived just fine, so I find all the over-wrought hand wringing about the havoc and burnout caused by Python's flaws hyperbolic.
No we damn well DID NOT. This is one of the most infuriating lines used all over for dismissing concerns about modern things and developments. "Oh why do we need vaccines/antibiotics, we survived just fine without them" except, you know, for all the hundreds of millions of deaths. Minor detail that. Mere "survival" through gross inefficiency is not a real yardstick.
By the same token, "it used to suck really badly" in programming and the result was awful practices, crashing, and security problems out the wazoo. We sort of "survived" that by a mixture of just plain eating the heavy losses and having them be somewhat mitigated by virtue of simply having less surface area for damage since less stuff was tech based or connected. Infrastructure was less built up. But times have changed and standards for, and value of, security/stability/supportability have increased dramatically.
Yes in a sufficiently large group I'm sure you'll be able to find individuals engaging in hyperbole about any such thing on the internet. But that doesn't in turn mean that there aren't very real, very serious concerns raised around the context of modern practice. Dismissiveness based on bad historic practice is not merely uncalled for, it's just plain weird.
Edit to add: another issue a lot of this dismissive comments tend to ignore is cost & skill. Yes, great things have been done with options we'd now consider subpar in the past, that's what they had to work with. But those things were done by the best of the best, with huge budgets, lots of experience and so on. A very important part of advancement is allowing the "same thing" to be done more cheaply by more people, and in turn be used for wider array of applications.