3 ms·

Most programming languages do have some variant of `sum(seqence)`. Python certainly does. Or, like, loops, which do the same thing. But they're optimized for d

Most programming languages do have some variant of `sum(seqence)`. Python certainly does. Or, like, loops, which do the same thing. But they're optimized for different things. Using the same tool for infinite length sequences and fixed length sequences doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We often have different types for them (tuple/record vs. list/array) too.

ken 8y ago
Having done addition in both infix and prefix varieties on my computer, over the past few decades, I don't understand why prefix notation is considered 'optimized' for indefinite (not 'infinite') sequences and infix notation is considered optimized for definite length sequences. What exactly "doesn't make a whole lot of sense" about (+ a b)? (It doesn't look the same as you wrote it in school? Neither does "3+4j", or "math.sqrt".) Being able to use the same tool for different types of data is precisely what makes high-level programming so powerful. As Alan Perlis said, "It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than 10 functions on 10 data structures." Having only one way to add numbers (in languages that do that) is a great feature. Python's insistence on these pre-selected groupings of functionality has always made it frustrating for me to work with. The two ways to add numbers look and work nothing alike. Does "TOOWTDI" not apply to math? (Yes, I'm also frustrated and confused that Python has built-in complex numbers, and a standard 'math' module with trigonometric functions, but math.cos(3+4j) is a TypeError. What possible benefit is there of having a full set of complex-compatible functionality, but hiding it in a different math module, with all the same method names?)
- joshuamorton 8y ago
  The zen never says TOOWTDO, it says TO(APOO)OWTDI. (That's "there's one, and preferably only one, obvious way to do it.) `reduce(op.add, [x, y])` works. Python could remove it's infix ops and use only prefix ones. But prefix ones aren't obvious. And as Guido says, readability matters.

ken 8y ago

Having done addition in both infix and prefix varieties on my computer, over the past few decades, I don't understand why prefix notation is considered 'optimized' for indefinite (not 'infinite') sequences and infix notation is considered optimized for definite length sequences. What exactly "doesn't make a whole lot of sense" about (+ a b)? (It doesn't look the same as you wrote it in school? Neither does "3+4j", or "math.sqrt".) Being able to use the same tool for different types of data is precisely what makes high-level programming so powerful. As Alan Perlis said, "It is better to have 100 functions operate on one data structure than 10 functions on 10 data structures." Having only one way to add numbers (in languages that do that) is a great feature. Python's insistence on these pre-selected groupings of functionality has always made it frustrating for me to work with. The two ways to add numbers look and work nothing alike. Does "TOOWTDI" not apply to math? (Yes, I'm also frustrated and confused that Python has built-in complex numbers, and a standard 'math' module with trigonometric functions, but math.cos(3+4j) is a TypeError. What possible benefit is there of having a full set of complex-compatible functionality, but hiding it in a different math module, with all the same method names?)

joshuamorton 8y ago
The zen never says TOOWTDO, it says TO(APOO)OWTDI. (That's "there's one, and preferably only one, obvious way to do it.) `reduce(op.add, [x, y])` works. Python could remove it's infix ops and use only prefix ones. But prefix ones aren't obvious. And as Guido says, readability matters.