3 ms·

This is a fantastic read!

• thwarted 16y ago
  This is a terrible read. This is a rant about what the author is used to, and anything else is different and hard. Now, in my mind, these method names are decidedly ugly. They aren’t friendly, short, clean, straightforward or simple. I don’t think anyone would argue with me there. Certainly no one’s actually happy typing the extra underscores. That’s true, function passing is painless in Python and a little harder in Ruby. But coll.map &f isn’t so bad, and for me, it’s definitely not a deal breaker. I’ve actually gotten used to it. To me, the extra syntax is the price we pay for internal consistency. These two quotes above are on one hand poopooing some apparently arbitrary naming convention in python and then praising the same kind of apparently arbitrary syntax quirk in ruby. (I find the double prefixing and suffixing underscores to make sense in python: these methods are called implicitly by other constructs, never called directly.)
  • djacobs 16y ago
    I'm going to go ahead and guess that you didn't read the entire article. You can disagree with what I say, but it's anything but a rant.
    • thwarted 16y ago
      Maybe rant was too strong of a word, but I don't think there much meat to this write up, because there isn't much introspection into why any of these differences are the way they are, it's mainly just pointing them out and favoring one over the other based on familiarity.