12 ms·
Creator here! Let me know if you have any suggestions.
by sayazamurai 8y ago
Creator here! Let me know if you have any suggestions.
- sharemywin 8y agoVery cool reference.
- zitterbewegung 8y agoAdd Python 2 and or another language that has a static type system like C.
- laumars 8y agoI think anyone who hasn't learned to do X in Python already really should be better off learning it in Python 3 rather than a version of the language which is in the process of deprecation.
- nanna 8y agoEither you forgot to mention that this is a personal todo, or you're trolling the author?
- laumars 8y agoI genuinely love the design of the page. It has personality without compromising readability. This is something a lot of people struggle to get right.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y agoConsider renaming to "How to write $X in both Python 3 and JavaScript" to avoid the confusion with X11 that others have pointed out? Nice article!
- mschuetz 8y agoNice list. Perhabs just personal preference but I'd use for(let element of someList){ console.log(element); } instead of someList.forEach(element => { console.log(element) }) for...of is easier to read and recognize as a loop construct at first glance, and as far as I recall it's also faster nowadays since the body of the loop is inline, whereas forEach requires the runtime to deal with a function object.
- tormeh 8y agoMakes me wonder if maybe the syntax for mapping, folding and other collection operations should have a similar syntax to for instead of the current method-style syntax popular in most modern languages.
- symlinkk 8y agoC# has a syntax called Linq Query Syntax that provides keywords in the language to do things like map, filter, and reduce. Example: var queryLondonCustomers = from cust in customers where cust.City == "London" select cust; I'm not a big fan of it honestly, the function style seems more consistent and easier to read to me.
- hnlauncher 8y agohttps://www.pyret.org/ https://www.pyret.org/ does it like this: for each(str from [list: "Ahoy", "world!"]): print(str) end for map(n from [list: 1,2,3]): n * n end # ==> [list: 1, 4, 9] for filter(n from [list: 1, 2, 3]): n >= 2 end # ==> [list: 2, 3] for fold(sum from 0, n from [list: 4, 5, 6]): sum + n end # ==> 15
- saghm 8y agoThat sounds a lot like Python list comprehensions
- tuesdayrain 8y agoPersonally I find the method-style syntax significantly more readable.
- jsh7 8y agoYou can also ‘return’ the outer function from within a ‘for...of’ which is pretty useful imo.
- andyfleming 8y agoAnd you can use await in the context of an outer async function, which is a huge advantage in reducing code complexity.
- FlyingLawnmower 8y agoThanks for the site! Do you have thoughts on removing all the print/console.logs calls on every line? It feels like there's a lot of visual noise there, that can still be met with the comments showing state/output.
- plopz 8y agoI might suggest replacing javascript's parseInt() with Number()
- fogetti 8y agoI really like the page. I really enjoyed going through the list. One suggestion would be to add python/javascript generator functions to the list.
- settler4 8y agoIt would be nice to have a sectioin with things that work differently in both languages. For example in python `if []:` evaluates to False while in javascript `if ([]) {` evaluates to True.
- andyfleming 8y agoInstead of... Object.entries(newDict).forEach(element => { console.log(`${element[0]} ${element[1]}`) }) ... you could write ... for (const key in newDict) { console.log(`${key} ${newDict[key]}`) } ... or ... for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(newDict)) { console.log(`${key} ${value}`) }
- floatrock 8y agoTruthiness! Although this is a case where idiomatic python is different from idiomatic js. In js: // same: !! "" // false !! 0 // false !! 1 // true !! null // false // different: !! {} // true !! [] // true while in python: # same: not not "" # False not not 0 # False not not 1 # True not not None # False # different: not not {} # False not not [] # False not not tuple() # False
- armandososa 8y agoFirst: congratulations, this is very well done. Second: I don't like seeing JavaScript code without semicolons. Maybe I am old, but it makes me nervous.