3 ms·

Same here. I've used Python daily or almost daily for the last ~10 years (thankfully I've used other languages too). I've architected reliable systems on top o

Same here. I've used Python daily or almost daily for the last ~10 years (thankfully I've used other languages too). I've architected reliable systems on top of it but it was obvious to me almost from the get-go that Python is a terrible language. I credit my previous years of programming in Lisp that trained my mind to see through the Python mirage. One issue is that veneer of Python user friendliness that lures people, usually those who are new to programming or don't have extensive experience with _multiple_ languages, in. The major issue for me is that Python lacks internal consistency and is based on a inverted-design (meaning, no design really) that accumulated over the years and stinks. This makes it really easy for people to use Python and write unmaintenable code but also very hard for them to find out how to write good code. The hallmark of a terrible language is making good code hard to write. As far as specifics, I think the module system is a joke, the packaging even worse, the REPL is not really a REPL (in the Lisp sense), ctypes is bad and has 100 different ways you can hang yourself with, there are tons of gotchas in the language and standard library that if you haven't memorized [usually by running into them], they will bite you hard, the GIL ties my hands, iterator/generator obsession makes for really bad code messes if people take it seriously and start poorly designing their APIs around it, absence of proper lexical scope, statements are not expressions and led to gross hacks like PEP 572... I could keep going for days. Python is really the PHP of the 2010 generation.

odonnellryan 7y ago
I honestly think you've just worked on bad projects. Python isn't the perfect language but the quality of the available libraries makes it awesome. The individual quality of projects in any language will always vary.
- metroholografix 7y ago
  My criticism is mostly aimed at the language (and its standard library) itself. The major projects I worked on, I architected from the beginning. It is when designing and architecting reliable systems that Python's terrible nature hits you in the face, especially if you're used to better languages. Take the nonsensical but alluring Python motto "There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it." Assuming this was even true, which it isn't as a series of Python debacles - by its designers no less - over the years has proven, I don't want a language that shoehorns my thinking into "one"-ness. One-ness doesn't solve hard problems. I want modeling flexibility, the ability to examine a problem from multiple perspectives and explore the solution space in-parallel from multiple angles of attack. C and C++, bad as they are, let you do this. Perl lets you do that. Common Lisp is the best language I know on that front, it is _designed_ to let you do this. I'm not going to say that Python is outright hostile to that mode of working, but it's not designed to bend / be stretched or mold with your mind in the same way that great languages are. Sooner (if you're solving fuzzy problems) or later , you'll run into its limitations and then you can't help but think that you're wasting your time.
  - qwsxyh 7y ago
    > I don't want a language that shoehorns my thinking into "one"-ness. Reworrded for you: > I don't like Python because I don't like Python
  - odonnellryan 7y ago
    Don't get me wrong, it is obviously your right to dislike a language. I've designed plenty of reliable systems in Python without much issues whatsoever with making them reliable. I have had some problems with code organization over the years (Python certainly lets you "do your own thing" which can lead to issues with organization over time) however I haven't had reliability, stability, or speed issues for 95% of the problems I've worked on. Only times I've ever personally needed a faster language - when submitting problems in Python to online courses (algo). Then I used C#. Whatever, not a big deal :) Python says the goal is to have "one right way" to do things, but certainly there are many, many ways to do any of those things. > I want modeling flexibility, the ability to examine a problem from multiple perspectives and explore the solution space in-parallel from multiple angles of attack. Can you give an example of where Python doesn't allow you to do this? I've never had this issue. Actually the opposite: mocking solutions are extremely easy with Python IMO and the tooling available (even the uber-free stuff) is awesome and easy to debug with (much easier than using Visual Studio for example - not saying VS is a bad app, it is great).
    - metroholografix 7y ago
      How about all of the following: Python GIL takes away lots of viable solutions. Lack of metaprogramming / code generation at runtime. Lack of performance forcing me to severely compromise or implement things in C. Type system is probably among the worst in the dynamic language space (compare to Common Lisp and Erlang). Python is not an interactive programming language and can not be used to implement rapid feedback loops as is possible in Common Lisp, Smalltalk and Erlang. The object system is very basic and error-prone compared to CLOS. The error handling system is very limited. I've found that all of these points translate into loss of flexibility and severely constrain the solution space. Having worked extensively in all of the alternative languages that I mentioned, there is not a single day that goes by where I'm programming in Python that I don't curse the language for being so limited / badly designed.

odonnellryan 7y ago

I honestly think you've just worked on bad projects. Python isn't the perfect language but the quality of the available libraries makes it awesome. The individual quality of projects in any language will always vary.

metroholografix 7y ago
My criticism is mostly aimed at the language (and its standard library) itself. The major projects I worked on, I architected from the beginning. It is when designing and architecting reliable systems that Python's terrible nature hits you in the face, especially if you're used to better languages. Take the nonsensical but alluring Python motto "There should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it." Assuming this was even true, which it isn't as a series of Python debacles - by its designers no less - over the years has proven, I don't want a language that shoehorns my thinking into "one"-ness. One-ness doesn't solve hard problems. I want modeling flexibility, the ability to examine a problem from multiple perspectives and explore the solution space in-parallel from multiple angles of attack. C and C++, bad as they are, let you do this. Perl lets you do that. Common Lisp is the best language I know on that front, it is _designed_ to let you do this. I'm not going to say that Python is outright hostile to that mode of working, but it's not designed to bend / be stretched or mold with your mind in the same way that great languages are. Sooner (if you're solving fuzzy problems) or later , you'll run into its limitations and then you can't help but think that you're wasting your time.
- qwsxyh 7y ago
  > I don't want a language that shoehorns my thinking into "one"-ness. Reworrded for you: > I don't like Python because I don't like Python
- odonnellryan 7y ago
  Don't get me wrong, it is obviously your right to dislike a language. I've designed plenty of reliable systems in Python without much issues whatsoever with making them reliable. I have had some problems with code organization over the years (Python certainly lets you "do your own thing" which can lead to issues with organization over time) however I haven't had reliability, stability, or speed issues for 95% of the problems I've worked on. Only times I've ever personally needed a faster language - when submitting problems in Python to online courses (algo). Then I used C#. Whatever, not a big deal :) Python says the goal is to have "one right way" to do things, but certainly there are many, many ways to do any of those things. > I want modeling flexibility, the ability to examine a problem from multiple perspectives and explore the solution space in-parallel from multiple angles of attack. Can you give an example of where Python doesn't allow you to do this? I've never had this issue. Actually the opposite: mocking solutions are extremely easy with Python IMO and the tooling available (even the uber-free stuff) is awesome and easy to debug with (much easier than using Visual Studio for example - not saying VS is a bad app, it is great).
  - metroholografix 7y ago
    How about all of the following: Python GIL takes away lots of viable solutions. Lack of metaprogramming / code generation at runtime. Lack of performance forcing me to severely compromise or implement things in C. Type system is probably among the worst in the dynamic language space (compare to Common Lisp and Erlang). Python is not an interactive programming language and can not be used to implement rapid feedback loops as is possible in Common Lisp, Smalltalk and Erlang. The object system is very basic and error-prone compared to CLOS. The error handling system is very limited. I've found that all of these points translate into loss of flexibility and severely constrain the solution space. Having worked extensively in all of the alternative languages that I mentioned, there is not a single day that goes by where I'm programming in Python that I don't curse the language for being so limited / badly designed.