Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
Yeah, the fact that python lambda can't take statements infuriates me, because like, every other language in the goddamn world can do it... But not python.
The switch vs match or lack thereof make me question if those deciding the "pythonic" ways had an actual python causing reduced oxygen flow to their brains...
Alas, I have to deal with python everyday nowadays, so I'd rather not think much about it cuz otherwise I'll get mad, and I'm trying to get drunk instead 😂 -
@tosensei JavaScript is only usable if you pretend it's a variant of lambda calculus. Browsers are pretty good at eliminating copies as well so it's not even that slow.
-
@lorentz javascript is only usable if you replace with something else.
-
@tosensei my brain is wired in a different way towards it vastly preferring JavaScript over Python. I use Python for a lot of cli utilities at work only because it is simple enough for everyone else to pick up. But recently I have been replacing Python with Golang, I tried doing so with Scala, but apparently that one was far too complex for everyone else. So golang and Python it is.
-
@jazznoodler Ok boomer
-
@hitko yawn
-
@jazznoodler
Anonymous functions make sense when they are supposed to be used in a limited scope, for a very specific purpose.
They don't needlessly pollute the namespace, and they improve locality. -
@AleCx04 I also prefer JS over Python, both are awful systems which somehow make a feature out of making invalid programs not only representable but practically impossible to distinguish from valid ones, but JS is at least understood to be a shit language and there are tools to fix the problems, whereas Python has this tragic attitude problem where people who invested lots of time in it are convinced that the shortcomings are actually features and accentuate them in their own Python libraries.
-
@CoreFusionX I don’t believe you ;)
-
@Ohiorenua simplicity and less code aren't the same thing. Adding delimiters to a sequence is simpler because it eliminates hidden information. Adding types to variables does the same. At optimal simplicity, everything you need to know is explicitly written in the code in front of you. Complexity grows with implications and indirectness.
-
@Ohiorenua Actually, I'd argue that simplicity is often in conflict with DRY in the case of highly context dependent processes with lots of variation and value components, and the choice of solution is a careful optimization against hidden relations and indirection.
A function call is always a level of indirection.which moves the answer to the reader's questions one step away from them. On the other hand, a function presents a small interface which enables the reader to ascertain that the behavior isn't dependent on any values that aren't explicitly passed to that function.
Copying code on the other hand creates a hidden relation between the two instances of the code; the behavior must remain shared and when one is modified the other must be synchronized as well.
Code quality is a difficult question, but minimizing the number of printable characters is definitely not a productive approach.
No questions asked
As a Python user and the fucking unicode mess, this is sooooo mean!
I just started working on a little project to browse devrant from terminal. It converts images to ascii art!
Today on "How the Fuck is Python a Real Language?": Lambda functions and other dumb Python syntax.
Lambda functions are generally passed as callbacks, e.g. "myFunc(a, b, lambda c, d: c + d)". Note that the comma between c and d is somehow on a completely different level than the comma between a and b, even though they're both within the same brackets, because instead of using something like, say, universally agreed-upon grouping symbols to visually group the lambda function arguments together, Python groups them using a reserved keyword on one end, and two little dots on the other end. Like yeah, that's easy to notice among 10 other variable and argument names. But Python couldn't really do any better, because "myFunc(a, b, (c, d): c + d)" would be even less readable and prone to typos given how fucked up Python's use of brackets already is.
And while I'm on the topic of dumb Python syntax, let's look at the switch, um, match statements. For a long time, people behind Python argued that a bunch of elif statements with the same fucking conditions (e.g. x == 1, x == 2, x == 3, ...) are more readable than a standard switch statement, but then in Python 3.10 (released only 1 year ago), they finally came to their senses and added match and case keywords to implement pattern matching. Except they managed to fuck up yet again; instead of a normal "default:" statement, the default statement is denoted by "case _:". Because somehow, everywhere else in the code _ behaves as a normal variable name, but in match statement it instead means "ignore the value in this place". For example, "match myVar:" and "case [first, *rest]:" will behave exactly like "[first, *rest] = myVar" as long as myVar is a list with one or more elements, but "case [_, *rest]:" won't assign the first element from the list to anything, even though "[_, *rest] = myVar" will assign it to _. Because fuck consistency, that's why.
And why the fuck is there no fallthrough? Wouldn't it make perfect sense to write
case ('rgb', r, g, b):
case ('argb', _, r, g, b):
case ('rgba', r, g, b, _):
case ('bgr', b, g, r):
case ('abgr', _, b, g, r):
case ('bgra', b, g, r, _):
and then, you know, handle r, g, and b values in the same fucking block of code? Pretty sure that would be more readable than having to write "handeRGB(r, g, b)" 6 fucking times depending on the input format. Oh, and never mind that Python already has a "break" keyword.
Speaking of the "break" keyword, if you try to use it outside of a loop, you get an error "'break' outside loop". However, there's also the "continue" keyword, and if you try to use it outside of a loop, you get an error "'continue' not properly in loop". Why the fuck are there two completely different error messages for that? Does it mean there exists some weird improper syntax to use "continue" inside of a loop? Or is it just another inconsistent Python bullshit where until Python 3.8 you couldn't use "continue" inside the "finally:" block (but you could always use "break", even though it does essentially the same thing, just branching to a different point).
rant
python
syntax