3 ms·

I'm not a super genius programmer by any means, but I've had a lot of pleasant surprises learning about the depths of Python.

• renox 10y ago
  I disagree: no static typing --> annoying runtime errors, no 'use strict'..
  • jsmith0295 10y ago
    While I like static typing, there's a lot more that goes into making a language good or bad than that. On the whole, python seems pretty good to me. I'd take it over Java 90% of the time.
    • mikevm 10y ago
      I learned to appreciate static typing after "diving into" a large Python codebase. Even with a good IDE (PyCharm), it was freaking hard to understand what the heck was going on. With all the fun in quick prototyping, there's no way I'm going to use a dynamic language for anything serious.
      • nstart 10y ago
        If a Python code base that's large carries no tests it can be a nightmare to walk through (I've walked through my own ones that I wrote before I had learnt testing too). Statically types languages are great but if they are also oop I find that unless someone really knows how to hold back on the "make things an interface" mentality you can end up with a large codebase that looks just as crazy as a dynamically typed one. Point here being that everyone's mileage will vary with dynamic and statically typed languages. But over time as the code base grows, the helpfulness of the language type becomes less (to the point of irrelevance). Instead the value of how cleanly the code has been written and maintained matters much more. Code with good tests, classes that are divided logically, well named methods and variables, etc, should be able to tell you what you are looking for regardless of language type.