3 ms·

This is a weird response. You can definitely argue that it's bad syntactic design because people seem to expect it to do something different, but if the argumen

This is a weird response. You can definitely argue that it's bad syntactic design because people seem to expect it to do something different, but if the argument is just that some category of programmer doesn't already know what it does, you're pretty much arguing against introducing any new language feature, syntax or library that wasn't taught in your imagined CS101 or whatever.

fratlas 8y ago
I agree with your point, but I meant that I haven't seen this specific syntax in many py tutorials or projects I've read.
ben509 8y ago
> you're pretty much arguing against introducing any new language feature, syntax or library that wasn't taught in your imagined CS101 or whatever. But there clearly is a body of knowledge which you can discover yourself: you can interview candidates, read discussions on SO, read library code, and you will find some techniques are commonly used, and some are rarely used. That distribution of what's known is changing over time regardless of what we do, because our peers are constantly learning and studying at different rates. This feature has been around for years, and is so rarely used that only language mavens know about it. Thus, you can observe that this is a failed feature and avoid using it. We can always reevaluate if people understand it later on, since that could change.
- fyi1183 8y ago
  On the other hand, when you do run across this construct in the wild, it is trivial to look up what it does and learn. I imagine that's how most people learned about it, since it doesn't exist in other languages. In a way I find your comment contradictory: on the one hand, you appreciate and embrace that the body of common knowledge can change. On the other hand, you use the current state of common knowledge as an argument against doing things that can improve the common knowledge.
  - Vendan 8y ago
    As a counterpoint, a similar syntactic construct exists in several templating languages, and behaves radically different...

fratlas 8y ago

I agree with your point, but I meant that I haven't seen this specific syntax in many py tutorials or projects I've read.

ben509 8y ago

> you're pretty much arguing against introducing any new language feature, syntax or library that wasn't taught in your imagined CS101 or whatever. But there clearly is a body of knowledge which you can discover yourself: you can interview candidates, read discussions on SO, read library code, and you will find some techniques are commonly used, and some are rarely used. That distribution of what's known is changing over time regardless of what we do, because our peers are constantly learning and studying at different rates. This feature has been around for years, and is so rarely used that only language mavens know about it. Thus, you can observe that this is a failed feature and avoid using it. We can always reevaluate if people understand it later on, since that could change.

fyi1183 8y ago
On the other hand, when you do run across this construct in the wild, it is trivial to look up what it does and learn. I imagine that's how most people learned about it, since it doesn't exist in other languages. In a way I find your comment contradictory: on the one hand, you appreciate and embrace that the body of common knowledge can change. On the other hand, you use the current state of common knowledge as an argument against doing things that can improve the common knowledge.
- Vendan 8y ago
  As a counterpoint, a similar syntactic construct exists in several templating languages, and behaves radically different...