4 ms·
If you don't want to deal with async stuff... then just don't use it. In the last week or two, I started a new personal project in Python, one where I decided f
by amyjess 10y ago
If you don't want to deal with async stuff... then just don't use it. In the last week or two, I started a new personal project in Python, one where I decided from the outset to take full advantage of 3.6, and I don't have a single async, await, import asyncio, or @asyncio.coroutine anywhere in my code. It's not the kind of code I want to write, so I don't write it. Instead, I'm happy with f-strings and the ability to union dicts together [0].
I do agree though that the type annotations hurt the overall austere laconicity of Python code. I don't use them myself, and I'm lucky that I don't have to read through anyone else's code that uses them, so it's not quite a big deal (yet).
f-strings alone have made me not want to go back to any older version.
[0] {**foo, **bar} # where foo and bar are both dicts; introduced in Python 3.5
- coleifer 10y agoI use a lot of software written by other people. I need to, in many cases, read and understand that software. So pretending it doesn't exist is fine for personal, small projects, but doesn't seem as realistic in my day-to-day work. Also, this post wasn't about every little feature in Python 3. It was about 2 features that, I feel, make python as a language less pythonic.
- polotics 10y agothis article is not good. in particular the way type annotations are lambasted is very weak
- coleifer 10y agoFair enough
- coleifer 10y agoTo those that downvoted, care to explain? I think it's a reasonable point to make that many of us read as much (or more) code as we write. Therefore, my concerns about readability.