3 ms·
I worked on a large-ish C++/Python codebase and touching the Python parts was always extremely frustrating for me. The lack of .h files alone is a huge grievan
by neutronicus 6y ago
I worked on a large-ish C++/Python codebase and touching the Python parts was always extremely frustrating for me.
The lack of .h files alone is a huge grievance for me - I had to scroll past definitions even to know names and arities of class methods, read constructors to know what's in class members.
SciPy was nice enough for turning data into a picture, though.
- supergarfield 6y ago> The lack of .h files alone is a huge grievance for me That's an interesting point... Besides C and its derivatives, and OCaml, do other languages have separate definition files? It seems like newer languages, even statically typed, normally don't. I suspect the reason is that you have to duplicate all definitions, which seems like rote work. It also feels less necessary with IDE tooling: IDEs I know have a view for all definitions in a file.
- mumblemumble 6y agoThey don't, but, at least in object-oriented languages, much of overall experience is easy enough to replicate with formal interfaces and coding standards.
- KingOfCoders 6y agoI thought the nice thing about Modula-2 was that you could browse through interface files to understand some code and then go into implementations.
- mumblemumble 6y agoIt's true, but there are so many ways to skin that cat. Smalltalk, for example, gives an even more fluid way to browse at a high level and then drill in, and it doesn't (necessarily) have source code files in the first place.