4 ms·
This just feels like another example of Python slowly creeping more esoteric syntax into the language, making it harder for beginners to approach the language.
by gizmo385 7y ago
This just feels like another example of Python slowly creeping more esoteric syntax into the language, making it harder for beginners to approach the language.
- jplayer01 7y agoBeginners don't have to know or touch any of this though. They can keep using normal strings until at some point they learn about f strings and see a need for them. You don't need to stop adding features to a language just because a beginner won't be able to learn everything. They don't need to.
- simonh 7y agoI think the point is, a beginner coming across some code using such esoteric features is going to be a bit lost as to what's going on. With most of Python you can see what it's doing even if you didn't know the syntax before. That's true of basic f-strings, but not so much with some of this stuff.
- makapuf 7y agoYeah languages are meant to be read even by beginners. I think a language like python shines by being small (in design) yet powerful (by capability). Having myriads of "nice for one use case" feature in the language is not the way forward. I long for the time where % format and .format are removed from the language spec. Even if they still work on the implementation for compatibility. Please remove things.
- batisteo 7y ago> Please remove things. We're not done with Python 2 yet. This would be a Python 4 for sure. That's not according the philosophy of backward compatibility of Python (even if I agree with you).
- makapuf 7y agoYes backward compatibility is not an option (lets avoid redoing python3 trauma ) and simply delegating coexistence of old and new features to implementation is a bit lazy. However documenting one way as the current one and other features as old ways, for backward compatibility can simplify things.