what is the fascination with Python ? ( CAUTION semi-programming rant )
-
trønderen wrote:
When you have to go outside the language itself to defend it, then I start questioning the language qualities.
By 'qualities' do you mean syntax? Or something else?
How far do you draw 'syntax'? Lots of aspects are consequences of the syntax, but can be identified as distinct qualities of their own - and if you like, you may reply: But that is just syntax! Let me pop a few elements off the top of my head: 'Readability': Semantics are easily discernible from the printed representation. 'Easily' here means that you need as little background study as possible to understand the symbols to see their meaning. You can discuss a COBOL program with an accountant, but probably not a C++ program to perform the same task! 'Explicitness': The source code should make those elements (conditions, actions, ...) that are significant to the application solution stand out clearly, without drowning in red tape, irrelevant (to the problem solution) punctuation and other 'noise' mandated by syntax. 'Naturalness': Established linguistic elements should as far as possible retain their established semantics when adopted by a language. This in particular applies to keywords - if you use another term when explaining the code to a non-programmer than the keyword, then the keyword is poorly chosen. Similar applies to all sorts of punctuation; they should have the established meaning. 'Consistency': Doing similar operations (e.g. on different data types) in similar ways. Doing identical operations in different implementations gives identical results. 'Unambiguousness': Preferably in a 'natural' way, so that a minimum of 'unnatural' syntax is required. (Take parenthesizing of logical conditions: Lots of languages follow natural languages, with no parentheses, other languages have a syntax that would be ambiguous without them.) 'Conciseness': To obtain a certain well defined effect, a single syntactic element should be required to invoke it. For more complex effects, a minimum of syntactical elements should be required. 'Safety': Errors that could be detected before the program is run should be detected before the program is run. If an error occurs at run time, it should have minimum disastrous effects. 'Environmental friendliness': If a partial solution is available from outside, it should be possible to adapt it as part of the total solution, with as few limitations (e.g. to the implementation language of the imported module) as possible. It should be possible to develop partial solution in this language for use in other total solutions, even if they are developed in other languages. 'Completeness': The basic mechanisms (data structures, flow, sync
-
Python is a very simple language compared to C#, C++, Java, etc. Last I checked, C# had over 30 Generics. Really, you only need the three that Python has: Dictionary, List, Queue and the C# ones are specialized variation on those. There is a lot of that, maybe called language bloat. I like C#, but could live with Python easily enough.
-
trønderen wrote:
you could just type and run, no waiting for compilation.
Yup. Type. Run. And if you by happenchance execute the new code you just typed, discover the syntax errors at runtime instead of compile-time! :laugh:
Latest Articles:
A Lightweight Thread Safe In-Memory Keyed Generic Cache Collection Service A Dynamic Where Implementation for Entity FrameworkYep, instant gratification. All code has to be converted, somehow to machine code. Pay me now or pay me later.
A home without books is a body without soul. Marcus Tullius Cicero PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.4.0 (Many new features) JaxCoder.com Latest Article: EventAggregator
-
I think it needs updating precisely because it's being used. New language features are added, etc. C# is onto version 10 or something now, so it's not just Python. My problem with Python is I believe that all my source code should be visible to the naked eye. Python breaks that rule by making whitespace part of the source code. That inspires violence in me. So I don't use it. And when I tell other people why they shouldn't use it, particularly for embedded systems, I just show them this: How fast is Python? - MicroPython versus C++ - YouTube[^] It even covers the issue of lack of decent python bindings for good libraries.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
Quote:
My problem with Python is I believe that all my source code should be visible to the naked eye. Python breaks that rule by making whitespace part of the source code. That inspires violence in me. So I don't use it.
Could not be in more agreement.
FormerBIOSGuy
-
trønderen wrote:
When you have to go outside the language itself to defend it, then I start questioning the language qualities.
By 'qualities' do you mean syntax? Or something else?
Maybe I misunderstood your intention. Did you mean to ask about those elements that are distinct from the language and itself, but is part of the ecosystem in which the language is used? I certainly may value the qualities of an ecosystem. As I mentioned in another post: The dotNet ecosystem allows you to develop different modules (for the same end result) in different languages; you pick the one best suited for the task. E.g. defining a dialog layout is a lot easier in the XAML language than in C#. That is an ecosystem quality, regardless of the qualities of XAML or C# as two of the languages in that ecosystem. Availability of well known, well tested, highly recognized libraries is most certainly a positive quality of an ecosystem - more strongly, of course when the library functions you need are provided. Libraries are examples of reusability, which is a positive quality, and if a library is reusable across a large family of languages, that raises its value. Having the option to study the inner workings of a library function, e.g. through the source code, may represent a positive value to some user groups. Having the option to close your solutions' inner workings may represent a value to some user groups. So may the option to e.g. sign your solutions, protect use of them with a license key etc. - but note that this may conflict with other qualities. A high quality development environment, with good editors, debuggers, test facilities, library management facilities etc. is also an important ecosystem quality. The support availability and quality is an important quality. Qualifications for giving good support includes the ability to talk the customer's language, and understand his problem. Good documentation that can be easily understood by the target group, is a part of support quality of the ecosystem. And then you have those ecosystem properties that may be qualities or dis-qualities. The general helpfulness of people using a certain ecosystem does have an effect on my perceived quality of the environment. So, if you have an excellent ecosystem with all of these qualities at a high level, can you then throw in any programming language, regardless of how rotten the syntax is, with rock bottom score on most of the language qualities I listed in my previous post? Well, you may try. It may seriously degrade the users' perception of the ecosystem qualities, if the pure coding part sets them bitching and swearing. That goes the other way, too: An excellent program language definition
-
In case somebody hasn't already posted it: The pope recommends Python (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-67209806 Admittedly a bit strange that the holy see recommends a snake. pibbur
So good protestants will stop using Python? :) We face another iteration of the Holy Wars. :sigh:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.