3 ms·

I respectfully disagree, but I suspect this might be a disconnect between different Python communities. I find the code extremely difficult to parse. Even ignor

by hoov 10y ago

I respectfully disagree, but I suspect this might be a disconnect between different Python communities. I find the code extremely difficult to parse. Even ignoring the egregious PEP-8 issues (and, I know that PEP-8'ing existing code can obfuscate commit history), there's too much logic on many lines. I strongly subscribe to the adage that "Code is read many more times than it's written".

userbinator 10y ago
The essence of your argument is "I don't understand because it's too hard for me"? Maybe that's true --- it certainly is for me --- but since this is quantum computing, I wouldn't expect to just understand this code without at least some background in QM. "Everything is hard before it is easy."
- hoov 10y ago
  That's not quite what I was trying to say. What I was saying is that there's many splits in the Python community. I work on large distributed systems, and have zero experience with quantum computing or advanced maths. But, I'm a curious individual. I'd love if the academic Python community (to try to put a label on it) would all write code that was "idomatic". I know that "idomatic" is a problmatic term, but specifically I'm asking for people to follow PEP-8 and generally follow the ethos of `import this`. Once we're speaking a common vernacular, we can better share ideas.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    Note that many researchers in fields other than computer science do not program for fun. They know their code isn't the best in the world, but they'd rather spend their time testing hypothesis rather than reading screeds about the "right way" of formatting some bits on their disk. My experience with most other researchers' code is that taking the logic and rewriting the code is more efficient than trying to fix the code they've shown you. But they deserve respect for not evangelising formatting over function -- a form of respect I cannot extend to you.
rosstex 10y ago
Perhaps you should try building your own then?

by hoov 10y ago

userbinator 10y ago

The essence of your argument is "I don't understand because it's too hard for me"? Maybe that's true --- it certainly is for me --- but since this is quantum computing, I wouldn't expect to just understand this code without at least some background in QM. "Everything is hard before it is easy."

hoov 10y ago
That's not quite what I was trying to say. What I was saying is that there's many splits in the Python community. I work on large distributed systems, and have zero experience with quantum computing or advanced maths. But, I'm a curious individual. I'd love if the academic Python community (to try to put a label on it) would all write code that was "idomatic". I know that "idomatic" is a problmatic term, but specifically I'm asking for people to follow PEP-8 and generally follow the ethos of `import this`. Once we're speaking a common vernacular, we can better share ideas.
- cyphar 10y ago
  Note that many researchers in fields other than computer science do not program for fun. They know their code isn't the best in the world, but they'd rather spend their time testing hypothesis rather than reading screeds about the "right way" of formatting some bits on their disk. My experience with most other researchers' code is that taking the logic and rewriting the code is more efficient than trying to fix the code they've shown you. But they deserve respect for not evangelising formatting over function -- a form of respect I cannot extend to you.

rosstex 10y ago

Perhaps you should try building your own then?