3 ms·

I love when people with native english skills write monsters like this: "If people's hopes of coding bug-free code in Python 2 actually panned out then I wouldn

by rdslw 11y ago

I love when people with native english skills write monsters like this: "If people's hopes of coding bug-free code in Python 2 actually panned out then I wouldn't consistently hear from basically every person who ports their project to Python 3 that they found latent bugs in their code regarding encoding and decoding of text and binary data." This should be under penalty ;) Anyone to divide it into few simpler sentences? UPDATE: And another one from our connected sentences loving author: "We assumed that more code would be written in Python 3 than in Python 2 over a long-enough time frame assuming we didn't botch Python 3 as it would last longer than Python 2 and be used more once Python 2.7 was only used for legacy projects and not new ones."

criley2 11y ago
Division of this sentence would reduce it's legibility. It's a simple IF <condition> THEN <result>. You can argue that he's overly verbose, but breaking the IF/THEN into multiple sentences reduces their connection and the ability to understand. "If we were actually creating bug free code in Python 2 then porting code to Python 3 would be seamless, which it is not".
nemmons 11y ago
Maybe something like: "I consistently hear from basically every person who ports their project to Python 3 that they found latent bugs in their code (regarding encoding/decoding of text and binary data). This would not be the case if people's hopes of coding bug free code had actually panned out." That's a little better, but still not great.
smegel 11y ago
If people's hopes of coding bug-free code in Python 2 actually panned out then they would have bug free code thus when they port their code to python 3, the unicode changes would not reveal latent (existing) bugs thus they would not blog about or tell people about said bugs, hence the author of that sentence would not have heard about such bugs moral of the story: Python 2 hides certain kind of unicode related bugs that are not exposed until you port to Python 3.
teek 11y ago
The first one: > If people's hopes of coding bug-free code in Python 2 actually panned out Python2 developers wanted to write bug-free code. code = for the purpose of processing text and binary data > then I wouldn't consistently hear from basically every person Python2 developers could not write bug free code. So they complained. complained = complained about their algorithms having bugs when they rewrote those algorithms in Python3 > that they found latent bugs in their code regarding encoding and decoding of text and binary data. Python2 code written by the same developers had bugs that they did not know about. When the same developers rewrote their code in Python3, they found the bugs. (If Python3 did not exist, then it would be very hard to write bug-free code in Python2.) The second one: > We assumed that more code would be written in Python 3 than in Python 2 over a long-enough time frame assuming we didn't botch Python 3 as it would last longer than Python 2 and be used more once Python 2.7 was only used for legacy projects and not new ones. If we designed Python 3 correctly, then we expect Python 3 to live longer than Python 2. We also expect more code to be written in Python 3 for the same reason. We also expect only old projects will be written in Python 2.7.

by rdslw 11y ago

criley2 11y ago

Division of this sentence would reduce it's legibility. It's a simple IF <condition> THEN <result>. You can argue that he's overly verbose, but breaking the IF/THEN into multiple sentences reduces their connection and the ability to understand. "If we were actually creating bug free code in Python 2 then porting code to Python 3 would be seamless, which it is not".

nemmons 11y ago

Maybe something like: "I consistently hear from basically every person who ports their project to Python 3 that they found latent bugs in their code (regarding encoding/decoding of text and binary data). This would not be the case if people's hopes of coding bug free code had actually panned out." That's a little better, but still not great.

smegel 11y ago

If people's hopes of coding bug-free code in Python 2 actually panned out then they would have bug free code thus when they port their code to python 3, the unicode changes would not reveal latent (existing) bugs thus they would not blog about or tell people about said bugs, hence the author of that sentence would not have heard about such bugs moral of the story: Python 2 hides certain kind of unicode related bugs that are not exposed until you port to Python 3.

teek 11y ago

The first one: > If people's hopes of coding bug-free code in Python 2 actually panned out Python2 developers wanted to write bug-free code. code = for the purpose of processing text and binary data > then I wouldn't consistently hear from basically every person Python2 developers could not write bug free code. So they complained. complained = complained about their algorithms having bugs when they rewrote those algorithms in Python3 > that they found latent bugs in their code regarding encoding and decoding of text and binary data. Python2 code written by the same developers had bugs that they did not know about. When the same developers rewrote their code in Python3, they found the bugs. (If Python3 did not exist, then it would be very hard to write bug-free code in Python2.) The second one: > We assumed that more code would be written in Python 3 than in Python 2 over a long-enough time frame assuming we didn't botch Python 3 as it would last longer than Python 2 and be used more once Python 2.7 was only used for legacy projects and not new ones. If we designed Python 3 correctly, then we expect Python 3 to live longer than Python 2. We also expect more code to be written in Python 3 for the same reason. We also expect only old projects will be written in Python 2.7.