5 ms·

shells were specifically made to operate with external programs (the Unix way) while Python is a more general programming language, so naturally it will be more

by Amnon 16y ago

shells were specifically made to operate with external programs (the Unix way) while Python is a more general programming language, so naturally it will be more verbose for this kind of task. Of course the first syntax breaks when one of the arguments has a space or any other meta-character in it.

btilly 16y ago
I'm fully aware of the reasons why things are as they are, and what the limitations of the different solutions are. My point still stands though, just because something is Python, written in the One True Way, does not guarantee readability. To be absolutely clear, I actually like Python. I just strongly disagree with the belief that Python magically ensures readability. Particularly because my impression is that people who think that Python magic pixie dust automatically makes for good code are actually more likely to write bad code. (Because they have not thought deeply enough about what makes code good.)
- Amnon 16y ago
  Of course Python doesn't automatically ensure good code. But the Python code in your example is readable -- pretty match as readable as it gets, considering the constraints I mentioned.
  - btilly 16y ago
    I still disbelieve. Ruby is as much a general programming language as Python, yet supports a syntax that I find much more readable. I even find the deprecated os.popen interface in Python to be more readable than the official Python 2.6 interface. And, of course, the Python 2.7 syntax is better. Therefore I can't agree that the Python that I presented is as good as is possible for a general purpose programming language.
    - jessedhillon 16y ago
      I'd have to disagree. In this case, the backticks are quite idiomatic, whereas the Python is less so. The Python example can be broken down by someone who knows OOP concepts in general, but not Python. It says: Invoke function Popen on the object subprocess, giving the arguments (for example) 'ls' and '-al' in a list. Standard output should be handled in some way that is indicated by the value of PIPE. On the object returned from Popen, call communicate(), which returns an array; take the first element off that returned array. Now, in order to make sense of this you would need to know what the arguments to Popen are, what communicate() means and what it returns. Does that require a trip to the documentation? Yes. Is it less readable? No, it's more readable. The understanding of what was read is not immediately conveyed, however. The Ruby/Perl/Bash backticks mean nothing even if you have an OO background. Maybe if the command is 'ls' and you know some Unix, you can work it out in your head to understand that it's invoking a command in the shell. What if it's calling something obscure with a string of arcane arguments appended? That will tell nothing, and the backticks will also add zero information. Backticks are more convenient, but readability is the ability of someone who doesn't know that particular concept, or even that language, to still parse a statement and extract some level of understanding.
      - btilly 16y ago
        Disagree with which? That the Python version is as readable as it could be? Don't argue that with me, argue with the decision to add a utility method that makes Python 2.7 better. As for readability, I emphatically disagree with you on how it should be defined. Readability is the result of the interaction between the programmer and the code. The interaction cannot be left out of this. There is such a thing as well-written, readable Greek. But if you don't speak Greek, it will all be Greek to you. COBOL was designed to be readable. Can you read any significant COBOL program? Old FORTRAN programmers complained that Smalltalk hideously unreadable because they didn't understand the basic concepts of OO. That said, something that is long and full of moving parts is inherently a challenge to read. Even if you understand every piece of that Python example (I happen to), when you encounter it in code there is a lot of semantic noise to what is written. That complexity can and should be hidden. As the Python 2.7 API does.

by Amnon 16y ago

btilly 16y ago

I'm fully aware of the reasons why things are as they are, and what the limitations of the different solutions are. My point still stands though, just because something is Python, written in the One True Way, does not guarantee readability. To be absolutely clear, I actually like Python. I just strongly disagree with the belief that Python magically ensures readability. Particularly because my impression is that people who think that Python magic pixie dust automatically makes for good code are actually more likely to write bad code. (Because they have not thought deeply enough about what makes code good.)

Amnon 16y ago
Of course Python doesn't automatically ensure good code. But the Python code in your example is readable -- pretty match as readable as it gets, considering the constraints I mentioned.
- btilly 16y ago
  I still disbelieve. Ruby is as much a general programming language as Python, yet supports a syntax that I find much more readable. I even find the deprecated os.popen interface in Python to be more readable than the official Python 2.6 interface. And, of course, the Python 2.7 syntax is better. Therefore I can't agree that the Python that I presented is as good as is possible for a general purpose programming language.
  - jessedhillon 16y ago
    I'd have to disagree. In this case, the backticks are quite idiomatic, whereas the Python is less so. The Python example can be broken down by someone who knows OOP concepts in general, but not Python. It says: Invoke function Popen on the object subprocess, giving the arguments (for example) 'ls' and '-al' in a list. Standard output should be handled in some way that is indicated by the value of PIPE. On the object returned from Popen, call communicate(), which returns an array; take the first element off that returned array. Now, in order to make sense of this you would need to know what the arguments to Popen are, what communicate() means and what it returns. Does that require a trip to the documentation? Yes. Is it less readable? No, it's more readable. The understanding of what was read is not immediately conveyed, however. The Ruby/Perl/Bash backticks mean nothing even if you have an OO background. Maybe if the command is 'ls' and you know some Unix, you can work it out in your head to understand that it's invoking a command in the shell. What if it's calling something obscure with a string of arcane arguments appended? That will tell nothing, and the backticks will also add zero information. Backticks are more convenient, but readability is the ability of someone who doesn't know that particular concept, or even that language, to still parse a statement and extract some level of understanding.
    - btilly 16y ago
      Disagree with which? That the Python version is as readable as it could be? Don't argue that with me, argue with the decision to add a utility method that makes Python 2.7 better. As for readability, I emphatically disagree with you on how it should be defined. Readability is the result of the interaction between the programmer and the code. The interaction cannot be left out of this. There is such a thing as well-written, readable Greek. But if you don't speak Greek, it will all be Greek to you. COBOL was designed to be readable. Can you read any significant COBOL program? Old FORTRAN programmers complained that Smalltalk hideously unreadable because they didn't understand the basic concepts of OO. That said, something that is long and full of moving parts is inherently a challenge to read. Even if you understand every piece of that Python example (I happen to), when you encounter it in code there is a lot of semantic noise to what is written. That complexity can and should be hidden. As the Python 2.7 API does.