5 ms·
I'm not sure I understand you here. How is Python more ad-hoc than any other language? It strikes me as less ad hoc than, say, Bash. At least Python has a prope
by MaxBarraclough 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand you here. How is Python more ad-hoc than any other language? It strikes me as less ad hoc than, say, Bash. At least Python has a proper standard library.
What do you mean by Python's mistakes? I'm no Python zealot but I'd say the Python language broadly achieves its aims. It's not a platform for cleverness with type theory or monads, and it's not a sensible choice for proving the correctness of programs. Those aren't its aims.
- grumpyprole 5y agoEven accepting it as a dynamic language that is predominantly imperative, it still has many surprising characteristics. The scoping, binding/assignment are conflated, no built-in records, limited lambdas, pervasive mutability and null/None, etc. I accept that it's a huge improvement over many mainstream languages (certainly bash!), but I find e.g. OCaml/F#/ML code far easier to reason about. These languages are also hybrid imperative and so there is no need to use monads, they can be used just like Python.