6 ms·

> But that's missing the point that Python is still not meant to be the best at anything, but good at most things. The most important thing about Python is rea

> But that's missing the point that Python is still not meant to be the best at anything, but good at most things. The most important thing about Python is readability and its part of its syntax and is one of the best languages out there for readability. Zen of python: >>> import this The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested. Sparse is better than dense. Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules. Although practicality beats purity. Errors should never pass silently. Unless explicitly silenced. In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess. There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never. Although never is often better than *right* now. If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those! >>>

nrakx 3y ago
That applies to Python 2.7 and the code that Tim Peters writes. It does not apply to current Python and the coding styles that most people employ. Current coding styles are either: - Java-like ravioli, with class hierarchies that no one understands. - Academic functional and iterator spaghetti, written by academics who think Python offers the same guarantees as Haskell. Both styles result in severely broken code bases.
- baq 3y ago
  and classes are most of the time not needed anyway, it's just Java programmers that aren't used to the idea that code can be perfectly correct and readable without a single class
- fastasucan 3y ago
  Are you really saying that these are the two coding styles of Python? Any source for this claim?
jen20 3y ago
I don’t know how people reconcile “python is beautiful and elegant” with “name your file __init__.py or __main__.py” while keeping a straight face.
- oblio 3y ago
  Heck, the package manager having to execute random code in every package (setup.py). And speaking of beautiful and elegant, dunders everywhere, really?
  - mananaysiempre 3y ago
    > Heck, the package manager having to execute random code in every package (setup.py). Nope! Not since the mid-2010s. It took a long time, but with wheels[1], install-time actions are finally separate from packaging-time actions, and the former do not include any user-defined actions at all. Just about every sufficiently general system allows for arbitrary code in the latter, be they in debian/rules or PKGBUILD or the buildPhase argument to mkDerivation or—indeed—in setup.py. (Most systems also try to sandbox those sooner or later, although e.g. the Arch Linux maintainers gave up on cutting off Go and Rust builds from the Internet AFAIU.) Don’t forget to `python setup.py bdist_wheel` your stuff before you upload it! > And speaking of beautiful and elegant, dunders everywhere, really? It’s the one reserved namespace in the language, so its usage for __init__.py and __main__.py seems—perhaps not beautiful, but fairly reasonable? [1] https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/binary-distribution-format/#installing-a-wheel-distribution-1-0-py32-none-any-whl https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/binary...
    - oblio 3y ago
      > Just about every sufficiently general system allows for arbitrary code in the latter, be they in debian/rules or PKGBUILD or the buildPhase argument to mkDerivation or—indeed—in setup.py. (Most systems also try to sandbox those sooner or later, although e.g. the Arch Linux maintainers gave up on cutting off Go and Rust builds from the Internet AFAIU.) Most other programming language package managers don't, see Maven for Java. But then again, NONE of the scripting languages ever wanted to learn stuff from Java, especially regarding packaging (lack of packaging namespaces is another major blunder re-created by Python and several others, including Javascript).

nrakx 3y ago

That applies to Python 2.7 and the code that Tim Peters writes. It does not apply to current Python and the coding styles that most people employ. Current coding styles are either: - Java-like ravioli, with class hierarchies that no one understands. - Academic functional and iterator spaghetti, written by academics who think Python offers the same guarantees as Haskell. Both styles result in severely broken code bases.

baq 3y ago
and classes are most of the time not needed anyway, it's just Java programmers that aren't used to the idea that code can be perfectly correct and readable without a single class
fastasucan 3y ago
Are you really saying that these are the two coding styles of Python? Any source for this claim?

jen20 3y ago

I don’t know how people reconcile “python is beautiful and elegant” with “name your file __init__.py or __main__.py” while keeping a straight face.

oblio 3y ago
Heck, the package manager having to execute random code in every package (setup.py). And speaking of beautiful and elegant, dunders everywhere, really?
- mananaysiempre 3y ago
  > Heck, the package manager having to execute random code in every package (setup.py). Nope! Not since the mid-2010s. It took a long time, but with wheels[1], install-time actions are finally separate from packaging-time actions, and the former do not include any user-defined actions at all. Just about every sufficiently general system allows for arbitrary code in the latter, be they in debian/rules or PKGBUILD or the buildPhase argument to mkDerivation or—indeed—in setup.py. (Most systems also try to sandbox those sooner or later, although e.g. the Arch Linux maintainers gave up on cutting off Go and Rust builds from the Internet AFAIU.) Don’t forget to `python setup.py bdist_wheel` your stuff before you upload it! > And speaking of beautiful and elegant, dunders everywhere, really? It’s the one reserved namespace in the language, so its usage for __init__.py and __main__.py seems—perhaps not beautiful, but fairly reasonable? [1] https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/binary-distribution-format/#installing-a-wheel-distribution-1-0-py32-none-any-whl https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/binary...
  - oblio 3y ago
    > Just about every sufficiently general system allows for arbitrary code in the latter, be they in debian/rules or PKGBUILD or the buildPhase argument to mkDerivation or—indeed—in setup.py. (Most systems also try to sandbox those sooner or later, although e.g. the Arch Linux maintainers gave up on cutting off Go and Rust builds from the Internet AFAIU.) Most other programming language package managers don't, see Maven for Java. But then again, NONE of the scripting languages ever wanted to learn stuff from Java, especially regarding packaging (lack of packaging namespaces is another major blunder re-created by Python and several others, including Javascript).