8 ms·

It's funny how far off the author was, because there are genuine things to complain about with python, though they may not be exclusive to python. I regularly

by fhood 8y ago

It's funny how far off the author was, because there are genuine things to complain about with python, though they may not be exclusive to python. I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters, because dealing with libraries that take complex objects as function parameters can be an absolute nightmare. I wish python had some equivalent to the switch statement that didn't involve workarounds with dictionaries, because sometimes you just want a clean way to deal with a value that can take 7 different forms. I regularly find myself wanting to write something of the form do_x() if a.y() This is stupid, but I still kind of want it since do_x() if a.y() else do_y() is valid Edit: Also fuck this whole "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing. Grow up. You aren't in college anymore. You should recognize that Java fills its niche effectively, and does a decent job of being semi-fast, portable, easy to read and maintain, and safe.

closed 8y ago
> I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters You can use type annotations, either via the builtin lib or 3rd party libs! https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html > do_x() if a.y() I feel this. You can use `a.y() and do_x()`, but I'm not sure how people would react :o
- fhood 8y ago
  > You can use type annotations, either via the builtin lib or 3rd party libs! > https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html I know, but tragically, because I am not forced to, I never do. I do appreciate that feature though. Maybe this will be the impetus I need to start taking advantage of it.
  - computerfriend 8y ago
    I started doing this about a year ago and it has made me a better Python developer. Getting into the habit of always writing a type annotation was hard at first, but you quickly get used to it. It helps if you configure mypy to complain at you if the annotations are missing.
  - dharmab 8y ago
    If you're starting a new project you can force yourself by running mypy's strict mode in CI.
  - lmm 8y ago
    You'll have a much better experience in an ecosystem where typing is the widespread expectation, IME. Try an ML-family language if you haven't already - I find they combine the best parts of something like Python and something like Java. There was a post pushing F# earlier today.
- bakery2k 8y ago
  > `a.y() and do_x()` If you're happy to write it that way round, why not just use `if a.y(): do_x()`?
  - fhood 8y ago
    Against pep-8 standards. I do end up using that sytax quite a bit anyway though.
    - viraptor 8y ago
      > PEP8: This document gives coding conventions for the Python code comprising the standard library in the main Python distribution. It's fine not to follow PEP8 for your own software. It's a useful guide, not a law.
  - closed 8y ago
    It's worth noting the second can't be used inline. I don't know the history, but it seems like that might be one of the reasons `x() if y()` isn't allowed in python. [x() if y()] if it existed, might carry an explicit else None. On the other hand [x() and y()] does something different when y() is falsey.
    - vram22 8y ago
      >I don't know the history, but it seems like that might be one of the reasons `x() if y()` isn't allowed in python. Maybe I misunderstood your context, but if not, conditional expressions do exist in Python: $ python Python 2.7.12 |Anaconda 4.2.0 (32-bit)| (default, Jun 29 2016, 11:42:13) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. Anaconda is brought to you by Continuum Analytics. Please check out: http://continuum.io/thanks and https://anaconda.org >>> 1 if 1 == 1 else 2 1 >>> 2 if 1 == 1 else 2 2 >>> ^Z $ py -3 Python 3.7.0 (v3.7.0:1bf9cc5093, Jun 27 2018, 04:59:51) [MSC v.1914 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 1 if 1 == 1 else 2 1 >>> 2 if 1 == 1 else 2 2 >>> Using nested conditional expressions to classify characters: https://jugad2.blogspot.com/2017/04/using-nested-conditional-expressions-to.html https://jugad2.blogspot.com/2017/04/using-nested-conditional...
- earenndil 8y ago
  Type annotations don't seem to actually have any effect, though? Consider: >>> def add(a: int, b: int): ... return a+b ... >>> add("a", "b") 'ab' This should be an error, even if it's a runtime error.
  - camel_Snake 8y ago
    it's optional typing. Running it through mypy will result in an error. If you are using type annotations I don't see why you wouldn't also be using a proper IDE or testing your code.
  - bakery2k 8y ago
    There doesn't seem to be any interest in checking type annotations at run-time. Unfortunately, without doing so, type annotations look authoritative but are essentially just comments. I believe Julia is an example of a dynamically-typed language which does perform such checks at run-time - including as part of its support for multiple dispatch.
    - nitely 8y ago
      Make mypy type checking part of the CI pipeline. Done.
    - qquark 8y ago
      I've been using enforce for this purpose (https://github.com/RussBaz/enforce https://github.com/RussBaz/enforce). It provides decorators that enable type checking where wanted. This gives the advantage of migrating existing code to type checking at your own pace at least. On a general note I've come across a few cases, when pushing python's type annotations to their limits, that force you to put the type names in string quotes, and that makes the whole thing feel like a hack. It's better than nothing for my use cases, but if I remember correctly both mypy and enforce have problems in common that are probably coming from the way python itself is built, such as self reference in a class definition.
      - quodlibetor 8y ago
davedx 8y ago
> I regularly find myself wanting to write something of the form do_x() if a.y() This is stupid, but I still kind of want it since do_x() if a.y() else do_y() is valid cough maybe you should be programming in Ruby ;)
- jwdunne 8y ago
  Yes, I was thinking that too. Hell, you can write: do_x if a.y? Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on perspectiven- great power and all that), Ruby allows things that Python doesn't and it's not hard to find yourself in a write-once mud bath. I do like Python's modules over how Ruby handles them too. Ruby's import (require) is akin to C/C++, with modules as a separate idea. I prefer the style of importing exactly what you need. But I know Ruby better so it's my go-to.
- daotoad 8y ago
  Or Perl 5. `do_stuff() if $a->y();` is a common idiom. Or Perl 6. `do-stuff() if $a.y;` is the Perl6 version. You can even declare your variables to be sigil-less so you end up with `do-stuff() if a.y;` if you want. See my Perl6 Advent Calendar article for a quick tour of the language, available docs, with practical examples focusing on using Perl6's novel features to write a self documenting command line script. https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2018/12/16/ https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2018/12/16/ I've written code in everything from assembly to ML, Java, and Prolog. Perl6 is the only language I've used that I would "mind-expanding". The more I use it, the I realize how radical its design is.
nicoburns 8y ago
Indeed. My personal bugbear is lack of multiline lambdas. I use these all the freaking time in JS and it's infuriating that I can't in python. At the end of the day it's a minor complaint of course.
- nicolashahn 8y ago
  I think it makes more sense in a language where you have to write callbacks all the time. I consider it a feature in Python, because by using `def` you're forced to imbue the function with meaning by providing it a name. Otherwise, it's just reading through a potentially complicated function without any context of what it's supposed to be doing.
  - Too 8y ago
    All languages, including python, where you do a lot of asynchronous io require callbacks all the time. It's only recently python got await-support to deal with this. Single line lambdas is a real PITA when your not using asyncio and python maintainers have said they don't plan to change it :(
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    It also makes sense if you're trying to do any sort of functional programming.
    - xapata 8y ago
      I use Python for functional programming and I don't miss multiline lambdas. I have a large monitor, so vertical space isn't at a premium for me.
- Zopieux 8y ago
  Though it doesn't take that much of an effort to just name your callback function and pass it as an argument. Python functions are first-class "objects" that can be passed around, use them! I've always found Python lambdas to be uncanny, weird and error prone. It's kinda syntactic sugar for expression-only defs with counterintuitive scope rules. I would recommend just not using them and fall back to named functions. It's just one extra line and that way you get to name it, which is always a nice thing.
setpatchaddress 8y ago
Agreed. After indentation-as-syntax -- which I've always hated, and I've been using Python since version 1.5 -- lack of switch statement is my #1 problem with Python.
- bakery2k 8y ago
  > indentation-as-syntax -- which I've always hated What would you prefer? C-style syntax? Ruby-style `end end end`?
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    Literally anything that allowed easier linting, less "wait am I doing it right" regarding multi-line statements, etc. If that is a keyword, or brackets, or whatever, I would prefer that. You can't minify or easily lint python. And you can't easily tell if there are mixed indent methods (tabs/spaces) and IDEs struggle with it vs. a simple bracket structure.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    C-style syntax. I'm not a fan of using something that is inherently invisible to scope my code, and be yelled at if it's not quite right (I'm writing this in Python because I want it to be done quickly; just leave my code style alone and I'll fix it later!)
dbcurtis 8y ago
> I wish python had some equivalent to the switch statement that didn't involve workarounds with dictionaries, because sometimes you just want a clean way to deal with a value that can take 7 different forms. I am with you there. I have often wished for a C-like switch(). That said, I think the best Python leans towards the functional, so instead of a switch(), it probably would be better to come up with some kind of multi-arm match more in line with modern functional language semantics. That could also be more flexible with respect to the type of the tested expression. Maybe something akin to the Rust match syntax. > I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters, because dealing with libraries that take complex objects as function parameters can be an absolute nightmare. Well, of course Python has type annotations. TBH, I don't use them. I tend to be rather pedantic about Sphinx doc for functions, most especially __init__() constructors. Kind of old-school and manual, but it works -- make doc and read it in your browser. The other thing I do in constructors is 1) make them very tolerant of what gets passed as a parameter, and 2) be very pedantic about raising ValueError in the right place, at the right time, with a clear message. I have a good friend that I argue with regularly -- now this guy is a compiler front-end guru -- ex-Sun senior staff level C/C++ compiler tech lead, very smart -- but we argue regularly about Python idiom. He litters his Python with extremely un-idiomatic assert(isinstance()) to check incoming parameters. I think C poisoned this man's brain with respect to type checking. There are two things wrong with his code: 1) It raises the wrong exception, the correct exception is TypeError, not AssertError. 2) It totally breaks __int__, __float__, etc, so I can't implement those on custom classes. In my constructors, to the extent possible, I do "type checking by re-construction" -- parameters i and p gets run through something like: self.i = int(i) self.p = PClass(p) So if you send me a string for i or something weird that implements __int__(), everything is cool. And PClass.__init__(self, x) is responsible for turning p into an instance of PClass, leaving it alone if it already is a PClass, or raises ValueError. This idiom makes type checking as tight as you want it to be, but doesn't break Python Zen.
- nitely 8y ago
  The pythonic way is to do duck typing, meaning don't check the params types at all. Assertions are ok to check things that should never happen. But if you're gonna put them everywhere then better use type hints. I'd use TypeError on public APIs, for private APIs is as bad/good as assert.
mixmastamyk 8y ago
> I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters, because dealing with libraries that take complex objects as function parameters can be an absolute nightmare. Meh, never encountered this in 20 years. Typing is helpful in large projects however, and not just with complex objects.
dkarl 8y ago
Edit: Also fuck this whole "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing. Grow up. You aren't in college anymore. You should recognize that Java fills its niche effectively, and does a decent job of being semi-fast, portable, easy to read and maintain, and safe. The "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing served an important purpose and is probably close to being retired, but it's easy not to understand if you weren't a Java programmer some time in Java's heyday. There was a culture and a set of assumptions around Java that today you could probably only find in the most stodgy and insular corporate programming environments. I helped introduce Java into a development group and ended up hating the people and practices it infected us with. The hatred is not completely unrelated to the language (which runs on a great platform and is not a horrible language) but it would never have attached itself to the language without some of the pathological culture surrounding it.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > The "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing served an important purpose and is probably close to being retired I don't know in which world you live in, but in the real world Java is by far the dominant platform for web services.
  - johnr2 8y ago
    > I don't know in which world you live in, but in the real world Java is by far the dominant platform for web services. I read it as meaning 'the "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing' is close to retirement, not the language itself.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      You're right. I was quick to assume that the comment was yet another jab at java. Unfortunately I have to deal with developer who insist in that line of argument, and it gets really tiring.
  - unethical_ban 8y ago
    Does that apply to any web service that meets the following criteria? * Created in the last 5 years * Built by an organization without a large Java heritage I bet that number goes waaaay down, way quick.
ubernostrum 8y ago
I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters As others pointed out, Python has optional type annotations and has had them since 3.0. They're static-only (you don't get runtime type checking from them), though, and getting what you want out of them will effectively require every single function, method and variable in not just your codebase but in every third-party dependency and all of their dependencies to be annotated. Also, annotating "complex objects" tends to be an unreadable mess. If you have lots of functions which take complex objects as arguments, rather than a more clear list of parameters, that's probably not going to be solved by type annotations; it will be solved by rewriting the functions. In other words, you probably will not be helped by: def foo(o: HugeLongComplexTypeDefinition) -> OtherHugeLongComplexTypeDefinition But you would be helped by: def foo(widget: Widget, operation: WidgetOperation, tolerance: float) -> Widget
goostavos 8y ago
> fuck this whole "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing. Grow up. Hey! Let people not like things, guy! I put my pants on, go to work, pick up my heavy JVM, and crack away in the Java mines for 8 hours. When I finally get home, tired, broken, achy fingered, and filled with disappointment for only making it to the AbstractAbstractFactory, rather than the AbstractFactoryFactory, I think I've earned a few "Yeah, with other type systems you'd be able to..." style complaints. Greener pastures and whatnot.
vesak 8y ago
> and safe. Oh no! You were so close!

by fhood 8y ago

closed 8y ago

> I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters You can use type annotations, either via the builtin lib or 3rd party libs! https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html > do_x() if a.y() I feel this. You can use `a.y() and do_x()`, but I'm not sure how people would react :o

fhood 8y ago
> You can use type annotations, either via the builtin lib or 3rd party libs! > https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html I know, but tragically, because I am not forced to, I never do. I do appreciate that feature though. Maybe this will be the impetus I need to start taking advantage of it.
- computerfriend 8y ago
  I started doing this about a year ago and it has made me a better Python developer. Getting into the habit of always writing a type annotation was hard at first, but you quickly get used to it. It helps if you configure mypy to complain at you if the annotations are missing.
- dharmab 8y ago
  If you're starting a new project you can force yourself by running mypy's strict mode in CI.
- lmm 8y ago
  You'll have a much better experience in an ecosystem where typing is the widespread expectation, IME. Try an ML-family language if you haven't already - I find they combine the best parts of something like Python and something like Java. There was a post pushing F# earlier today.
bakery2k 8y ago
> `a.y() and do_x()` If you're happy to write it that way round, why not just use `if a.y(): do_x()`?
- fhood 8y ago
  Against pep-8 standards. I do end up using that sytax quite a bit anyway though.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    > PEP8: This document gives coding conventions for the Python code comprising the standard library in the main Python distribution. It's fine not to follow PEP8 for your own software. It's a useful guide, not a law.
- closed 8y ago
  It's worth noting the second can't be used inline. I don't know the history, but it seems like that might be one of the reasons `x() if y()` isn't allowed in python. [x() if y()] if it existed, might carry an explicit else None. On the other hand [x() and y()] does something different when y() is falsey.
  - vram22 8y ago
    >I don't know the history, but it seems like that might be one of the reasons `x() if y()` isn't allowed in python. Maybe I misunderstood your context, but if not, conditional expressions do exist in Python: $ python Python 2.7.12 |Anaconda 4.2.0 (32-bit)| (default, Jun 29 2016, 11:42:13) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. Anaconda is brought to you by Continuum Analytics. Please check out: http://continuum.io/thanks and https://anaconda.org >>> 1 if 1 == 1 else 2 1 >>> 2 if 1 == 1 else 2 2 >>> ^Z $ py -3 Python 3.7.0 (v3.7.0:1bf9cc5093, Jun 27 2018, 04:59:51) [MSC v.1914 64 bit (AMD64)] on win32 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> 1 if 1 == 1 else 2 1 >>> 2 if 1 == 1 else 2 2 >>> Using nested conditional expressions to classify characters: https://jugad2.blogspot.com/2017/04/using-nested-conditional-expressions-to.html https://jugad2.blogspot.com/2017/04/using-nested-conditional...
earenndil 8y ago
Type annotations don't seem to actually have any effect, though? Consider: >>> def add(a: int, b: int): ... return a+b ... >>> add("a", "b") 'ab' This should be an error, even if it's a runtime error.
- camel_Snake 8y ago
  it's optional typing. Running it through mypy will result in an error. If you are using type annotations I don't see why you wouldn't also be using a proper IDE or testing your code.
- bakery2k 8y ago
  There doesn't seem to be any interest in checking type annotations at run-time. Unfortunately, without doing so, type annotations look authoritative but are essentially just comments. I believe Julia is an example of a dynamically-typed language which does perform such checks at run-time - including as part of its support for multiple dispatch.
  - nitely 8y ago
    Make mypy type checking part of the CI pipeline. Done.
  - qquark 8y ago
    I've been using enforce for this purpose (https://github.com/RussBaz/enforce https://github.com/RussBaz/enforce). It provides decorators that enable type checking where wanted. This gives the advantage of migrating existing code to type checking at your own pace at least. On a general note I've come across a few cases, when pushing python's type annotations to their limits, that force you to put the type names in string quotes, and that makes the whole thing feel like a hack. It's better than nothing for my use cases, but if I remember correctly both mypy and enforce have problems in common that are probably coming from the way python itself is built, such as self reference in a class definition.
    - quodlibetor 8y ago

davedx 8y ago

> I regularly find myself wanting to write something of the form do_x() if a.y() This is stupid, but I still kind of want it since do_x() if a.y() else do_y() is valid cough maybe you should be programming in Ruby ;)

jwdunne 8y ago
Yes, I was thinking that too. Hell, you can write: do_x if a.y? Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on perspectiven- great power and all that), Ruby allows things that Python doesn't and it's not hard to find yourself in a write-once mud bath. I do like Python's modules over how Ruby handles them too. Ruby's import (require) is akin to C/C++, with modules as a separate idea. I prefer the style of importing exactly what you need. But I know Ruby better so it's my go-to.
daotoad 8y ago
Or Perl 5. `do_stuff() if $a->y();` is a common idiom. Or Perl 6. `do-stuff() if $a.y;` is the Perl6 version. You can even declare your variables to be sigil-less so you end up with `do-stuff() if a.y;` if you want. See my Perl6 Advent Calendar article for a quick tour of the language, available docs, with practical examples focusing on using Perl6's novel features to write a self documenting command line script. https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2018/12/16/ https://perl6advent.wordpress.com/2018/12/16/ I've written code in everything from assembly to ML, Java, and Prolog. Perl6 is the only language I've used that I would "mind-expanding". The more I use it, the I realize how radical its design is.

nicoburns 8y ago

Indeed. My personal bugbear is lack of multiline lambdas. I use these all the freaking time in JS and it's infuriating that I can't in python. At the end of the day it's a minor complaint of course.

nicolashahn 8y ago
I think it makes more sense in a language where you have to write callbacks all the time. I consider it a feature in Python, because by using `def` you're forced to imbue the function with meaning by providing it a name. Otherwise, it's just reading through a potentially complicated function without any context of what it's supposed to be doing.
- Too 8y ago
  All languages, including python, where you do a lot of asynchronous io require callbacks all the time. It's only recently python got await-support to deal with this. Single line lambdas is a real PITA when your not using asyncio and python maintainers have said they don't plan to change it :(
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- saagarjha 8y ago
  It also makes sense if you're trying to do any sort of functional programming.
  - xapata 8y ago
    I use Python for functional programming and I don't miss multiline lambdas. I have a large monitor, so vertical space isn't at a premium for me.
Zopieux 8y ago
Though it doesn't take that much of an effort to just name your callback function and pass it as an argument. Python functions are first-class "objects" that can be passed around, use them! I've always found Python lambdas to be uncanny, weird and error prone. It's kinda syntactic sugar for expression-only defs with counterintuitive scope rules. I would recommend just not using them and fall back to named functions. It's just one extra line and that way you get to name it, which is always a nice thing.

setpatchaddress 8y ago

Agreed. After indentation-as-syntax -- which I've always hated, and I've been using Python since version 1.5 -- lack of switch statement is my #1 problem with Python.

bakery2k 8y ago
> indentation-as-syntax -- which I've always hated What would you prefer? C-style syntax? Ruby-style `end end end`?
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  Literally anything that allowed easier linting, less "wait am I doing it right" regarding multi-line statements, etc. If that is a keyword, or brackets, or whatever, I would prefer that. You can't minify or easily lint python. And you can't easily tell if there are mixed indent methods (tabs/spaces) and IDEs struggle with it vs. a simple bracket structure.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  C-style syntax. I'm not a fan of using something that is inherently invisible to scope my code, and be yelled at if it's not quite right (I'm writing this in Python because I want it to be done quickly; just leave my code style alone and I'll fix it later!)

dbcurtis 8y ago

> I wish python had some equivalent to the switch statement that didn't involve workarounds with dictionaries, because sometimes you just want a clean way to deal with a value that can take 7 different forms. I am with you there. I have often wished for a C-like switch(). That said, I think the best Python leans towards the functional, so instead of a switch(), it probably would be better to come up with some kind of multi-arm match more in line with modern functional language semantics. That could also be more flexible with respect to the type of the tested expression. Maybe something akin to the Rust match syntax. > I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters, because dealing with libraries that take complex objects as function parameters can be an absolute nightmare. Well, of course Python has type annotations. TBH, I don't use them. I tend to be rather pedantic about Sphinx doc for functions, most especially __init__() constructors. Kind of old-school and manual, but it works -- make doc and read it in your browser. The other thing I do in constructors is 1) make them very tolerant of what gets passed as a parameter, and 2) be very pedantic about raising ValueError in the right place, at the right time, with a clear message. I have a good friend that I argue with regularly -- now this guy is a compiler front-end guru -- ex-Sun senior staff level C/C++ compiler tech lead, very smart -- but we argue regularly about Python idiom. He litters his Python with extremely un-idiomatic assert(isinstance()) to check incoming parameters. I think C poisoned this man's brain with respect to type checking. There are two things wrong with his code: 1) It raises the wrong exception, the correct exception is TypeError, not AssertError. 2) It totally breaks __int__, __float__, etc, so I can't implement those on custom classes. In my constructors, to the extent possible, I do "type checking by re-construction" -- parameters i and p gets run through something like: self.i = int(i) self.p = PClass(p) So if you send me a string for i or something weird that implements __int__(), everything is cool. And PClass.__init__(self, x) is responsible for turning p into an instance of PClass, leaving it alone if it already is a PClass, or raises ValueError. This idiom makes type checking as tight as you want it to be, but doesn't break Python Zen.

nitely 8y ago
The pythonic way is to do duck typing, meaning don't check the params types at all. Assertions are ok to check things that should never happen. But if you're gonna put them everywhere then better use type hints. I'd use TypeError on public APIs, for private APIs is as bad/good as assert.

mixmastamyk 8y ago

> I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters, because dealing with libraries that take complex objects as function parameters can be an absolute nightmare. Meh, never encountered this in 20 years. Typing is helpful in large projects however, and not just with complex objects.

dkarl 8y ago

Edit: Also fuck this whole "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing. Grow up. You aren't in college anymore. You should recognize that Java fills its niche effectively, and does a decent job of being semi-fast, portable, easy to read and maintain, and safe. The "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing served an important purpose and is probably close to being retired, but it's easy not to understand if you weren't a Java programmer some time in Java's heyday. There was a culture and a set of assumptions around Java that today you could probably only find in the most stodgy and insular corporate programming environments. I helped introduce Java into a development group and ended up hating the people and practices it infected us with. The hatred is not completely unrelated to the language (which runs on a great platform and is not a horrible language) but it would never have attached itself to the language without some of the pathological culture surrounding it.

geezerjay 8y ago
> The "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing served an important purpose and is probably close to being retired I don't know in which world you live in, but in the real world Java is by far the dominant platform for web services.
- johnr2 8y ago
  > I don't know in which world you live in, but in the real world Java is by far the dominant platform for web services. I read it as meaning 'the "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing' is close to retirement, not the language itself.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    You're right. I was quick to assume that the comment was yet another jab at java. Unfortunately I have to deal with developer who insist in that line of argument, and it gets really tiring.
- unethical_ban 8y ago
  Does that apply to any web service that meets the following criteria? * Created in the last 5 years * Built by an organization without a large Java heritage I bet that number goes waaaay down, way quick.

ubernostrum 8y ago

I regularly wish python required some sort type indication for function parameters As others pointed out, Python has optional type annotations and has had them since 3.0. They're static-only (you don't get runtime type checking from them), though, and getting what you want out of them will effectively require every single function, method and variable in not just your codebase but in every third-party dependency and all of their dependencies to be annotated. Also, annotating "complex objects" tends to be an unreadable mess. If you have lots of functions which take complex objects as arguments, rather than a more clear list of parameters, that's probably not going to be solved by type annotations; it will be solved by rewriting the functions. In other words, you probably will not be helped by: def foo(o: HugeLongComplexTypeDefinition) -> OtherHugeLongComplexTypeDefinition But you would be helped by: def foo(widget: Widget, operation: WidgetOperation, tolerance: float) -> Widget

goostavos 8y ago

> fuck this whole "it's so cool to shit on Java" thing. Grow up. Hey! Let people not like things, guy! I put my pants on, go to work, pick up my heavy JVM, and crack away in the Java mines for 8 hours. When I finally get home, tired, broken, achy fingered, and filled with disappointment for only making it to the AbstractAbstractFactory, rather than the AbstractFactoryFactory, I think I've earned a few "Yeah, with other type systems you'd be able to..." style complaints. Greener pastures and whatnot.

vesak 8y ago

> and safe. Oh no! You were so close!