11 ms·

At this point I'm open to try anything that will give me access to the python ecosystem without having to code in Python. From the FAQ it looks like Erg code ge

At this point I'm open to try anything that will give me access to the python ecosystem without having to code in Python. From the FAQ it looks like Erg code gets transpiled to python bytecode.

adenozine 4y ago
Fable for F# is working on something like that. a link: https://fable.io/blog/2022/2022-06-06-Snake_Island_alpha.html https://fable.io/blog/2022/2022-06-06-Snake_Island_alpha.htm...
metadat 4y ago
Why so averse to direct Python?
- likeabbas 4y ago
  Slightly related question: why do people love Python so much? Or, any dynamically typed language? There's almost nothing that has frustrated me more in a professional setting than trying to figure out what some dynamically typed code is doing and ensuring I don't break anything by making changes.
  - codedokode 4y ago
    Because you can do a lot with little typing and there are lots of great libraries. Python is probably the best choice when you need to get something done quick or calculate something when performance is not important. It is also not an exotic functional language without loops and filled with linked lists. Also, in Python integers do not overflow, unlike in Rust, C and other buggy languages. If you name a language, with high probability Python will be better in something unless it is about performance. What I don't like: no type hints in many libraries, some libraries are not type-hint friendly, lot of unnecessary dynmamic features (like being able to patch modules in runtime) and absolutely no caring about performance and being able to compile into machine code. > trying to figure out what some dynamically typed code is doing There should be type hints.
    - toomanydoubts 4y ago
      >There should be type hints. "Hey, this variable is probably of this type. Now go on, run the code and launch a debugger the same way you would if there was no hint just to make sure it's correct. Oh, and don't forget to check all the possible code paths that lead to this to make sure you've exhausted all possibilities." Don't get me wrong, type hints are cool but they're just a toy compared to proper static typing.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        > Oh, and don't forget to check all the possible code paths that lead to this to make sure you've exhausted all possibilities." This is literally what mypy does. There's no difference between a mypy-enabled codebase and a java codebase in terms of static typing (other than that mypy actually supports a generally richer type system). Like yes if you aren't validating the type hints you aren't getting the value, but if you are, you don't need to run the code! I get most of my python errors at compile time, and you can too. I promise.
        FridgeSeal 4y ago
        Sorry, but MyPy and friends can barely hold a candle to what actual static-typing systems do - Rust, Haskell, OCaml, Typescript, even .Net (C#/F#) offer more safety and guarantees. Type hints in python are _just that_, they're hints. The whole "typed" python ecosystem relies on packages and the language using them, using them correctly, and using them consistently. In my experience so far, I've seen little widespread use, and nothing from core python, which is a huge hole IMO.
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        > Sorry, but MyPy and friends can barely hold a candle to what actual static-typing systems do - Rust, Haskell, OCaml, Typescript, even .Net (C#/F#) offer more safety and guarantees. Note that you don't include the most common static languages there (cpp, java, golang), you include languages known *specifically " for their extremely powerful type systems, one of which , just like mypy, uses gradual typing! This supports my argument!
  - sdeframond 4y ago
    I believe dynamically typed languages are easier to use than old-style statically typed langages (Java, C, etc). More modern statically typed languages can be quite easy to use (I am thinking of Scala) but none provides an ecosystem as rich as python's. Plus, recent static languages (Scala, Rust, Haskell or even Elm) are more oriented toward "Software Engineers" or CS academics. Python appeals to a lot of "programmers" who's main job is actually data science, mechanical engineering, biologist...
    - epgui 4y ago
      I think the latter point hits the nail right on the head: the preference for python is probably more of a social issue than a technical one at this particular point in History. I think when FP languages and paradigms become the norm (you can quote me on this, I predict that it's only a matter of time), preferences will change. People tend to prefer what they know, and it will take some time for culture to change.
    - gilch 4y ago
      I found Scala horribly overwrought compared to either Java or Haskell. It's like it tried to mush together two different type systems and got the worst of both worlds. Languages do not need to be that complex. My next JVM language was Clojure, and I've never looked back. I'd try Kotlin before I'd go back to Scala.
  - analog31 4y ago
    I have a hunch that a lot of Python users didn't carefully evaluate the language on its merits, but rather, just started using it. In my own case, I was using Visual Basic 6 before Python, and mostly Turbo Pascal before that. A huge attraction of Python was the libraries -- scipy, matplotlib, etc. In fact when a lot of people say they're using "Python," they're actually referring to Python plus a large collection of libraries that came from somewhere. It's the community. Network effect looms large. While typing is dynamic, I rarely see this being used, perhaps with the exception of identifying empty variables with None. Most identifiers are born and die the same type. It would be interesting to see how much effect dynamic typing has on the rate of programming errors. Also, for me, Jupyter is huge.
    - cpeterso 4y ago
      I suspect the same. People adopt Python because its clean syntax and REPL make the language approachable and easy to get started and then the huge library ecosystem helps you glue together (in a good way) powerful systems. But how many Python users and libraries actually use the language’s extremely dynamic runtime behavior? Something they’re paying for with a big performance penalty and surprising bugs.
      - gilch 4y ago
        Numpy uses magic methods (Python's version of operator overloading). Django uses metaclasses. Pytest dynamically rewrites assert statements using AST. I'd say it's pretty common, at least in libraries. I certainly depend on Python's dynamism when fully leveraging the REPL.
        analog31 4y ago
        Indeed, these capabilities of the language are some of its strengths, even if we don't all trust ourselves to use them. The casual programmer doesn't know how or why numpy works, and we don't play with magic methods except out of curiosity. The people who do maintain numpy are using more formal methods to ensure its quality. In the case of Python, the things that professional caliber programmers can use to extend its functionality, and the things that the rest of us can use to be productive, are the same language and are not hidden from one another. This is not the case in some languages of the past, e.g., you could use objects in Visual Basic but not build them without another language or eventually a special version.
  - VectorLock 4y ago
    >ensuring I don't break anything by making changes I think this is a problem in both static and dynamic languages and is pretty much solved in the same way: you test your code.
    - toomanydoubts 4y ago
      But is it the same problem, really? Static typing eliminates a whole class of issues that dynamic typed languages don't. Of course you can still have logical bugs, but it's definitely not the same thing. I don't know how to put it better, but you should try writing haskell sometime and you'll see what I mean.
      - gilch 4y ago
        And static languages introduce a whole class of issues that dynamic languages don't have to deal with. You have to learn a separate metalanguage just for the types that isn't expressive enough to do things that are easy in a dynamic language, and even if it were, you'd still have to write everything twice: once in the real language, and once again in the type language. And then you still have to test, don't pretend you don't. If tests are both necessary and sufficient, then why bother with the type language? The static typing is not worth the cost.
        hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago
        So why not static with the ability to ignore hinting or similar? C# does this. I think function definitions should be statically defined, but the actual body of a function could easily stay largely dynamic.
        gilch 4y ago
        I do think that's helpful compared to the strict alternative, but much of the up-front cost is still there. You still write most things twice, and the static type checker still slows you down when prototyping. You'd still be tempted to write bad code to work around the insufficiently-expressive type language, rather than write it in the most natural way, and only give up when it's too hard. You can also approach this from the other direction: why not start with a dynamic language for the rapid prototyping and gradually introduce typing as the code stabilizes? Python and Typescript do this.
  - qsort 4y ago
    - Huge ecosystem. - Common stuff (opening files, dealing with databases, string processing, math, regexps) is very easy. Sane defaults. - Works well with the existing C ecosystem. It's not a "rewrite everything in X" language. - It's everywhere, most machines run Python just fine. - It doesn't treat Windows like a second-class citizen. - It doesn't force upon you a programming model that you might or might not care about. It's not a puzzle language where everything is a monad, or everything is a class, or everything is some weird widget. Write the damn code. - I'm personally not a fan of the language itself, but it's mostly a bog-standard algol if you don't poke it too much. It's relatively standard, people just get it even if Python isn't their main language. - Very personal point, but it's the only language I can edit with a plain text editor. Think nano, vi, Windows Notepad, that kind of thing. I don't know what to tell you, maybe it's my tiny monkey brain, but I can't do the same in Java or C++. Not that it's my preferred way to edit software, but I like having that option in a pinch. At least for what I do (developer, but with a data engineering/data science flavor) the overall architecture is usually the important thing, so admittedly some downsides might hit me less. I'd still rather write medium-to-large pieces of software (say 10,000+ LOC) in something else (Java, C#, C++, something boring like that), but it's pretty much unbeatable for small programs as far as I'm concerned.
    - fezfight 4y ago
      To be fair, Microsofts citizen status is self inflicted. There was a time when they were actively hostile to programming languages not built in house. See, for example, Java. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu...
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        Nah, it is only for UNIX folks that see UNIX everywhere, and start complaing when an OS isn't POSIX compatible. Even on those days there were always Java alternatives to chose from, J++ wasn't required.
        fezfight 4y ago
  - gilch 4y ago
    Python is statically typed though. [1][2][3][4] These aren't just some third-party tools bolted on. The type annotation syntax is built into the language[5] and standard library[6][7]. I personally find static typing to be more trouble than it's worth most of the time. Industry typing metalanguages are not expressive enough to deal with even fairly basic real-world programs and force you to write bad code to work around the type checker's stupidity. And, of course, you still have to write tests. Maybe someday they'll catch up to Idris. Python's static typing is no better, but at least it allows you to turn it off when it's not worth it. [1]: https://github.com/microsoft/pyright https://github.com/microsoft/pyright [2]: https://github.com/python/mypy https://github.com/python/mypy [3]: https://github.com/google/pytype https://github.com/google/pytype [4]: https://github.com/facebook/pyre-check https://github.com/facebook/pyre-check [5]: https://peps.python.org/pep-3107/ https://peps.python.org/pep-3107/ [6]: https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ [7]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#module-typing https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#module-typing
    - still_grokking 4y ago
      > Industry typing metalanguages are not expressive enough to deal with even fairly basic real-world programs and force you to write bad code to work around the type checker's stupidity. I honestly don't see that. Could you provide some examples?
  - agumonkey 4y ago
    casual and fast prototyping now you can have succint code and fast repl (ala sml) but you don't get the libs
  - gilch 4y ago
    Anecdote, but I like the Python community's emphasis on "readability counts". I did not get that from e.g. Ruby. Python's internals are also relatively accessible and easy to work with, so it's smooth sailing once you have that need. The language starts out easy, and grows with you. Of the languages I've tried (and there are many), only Smalltalk and the Lisp family were comparable in expressiveness. The language mostly gets out of my way and lets me do what I want. I don't feel like I have to fight the compiler (at least until I tried Mypy) or write a lot of tediously verbose boilerplate just to get out a "Hello, World!" like I did in Java. Unlike, say, JavaScript, Python is pretty strongly typed and fails fast. The stack traces almost always point you to the exact location of the problem (unlike the JS tendency to propagate `undefined` everywhere). There aren't a lot of surprises or gotchas. I can pretty much run it in my head just by reading the code and be right most of the time. I cannot say the same for C++ or JavaScript, which naturally tend to become inscrutable without discipline.
    - smt88 4y ago
      Python is among the least-readable languages for me. The lack of whitespace and brackets around code blocks just make it look like the "wall of text" that everyone hates in emails. And then there's the fact that Python has significant characters that are literally unreadable because they're invisible (semantic whitespace).
      - maleldil 4y ago
        I never got the point against meaningful whitespace. It's indentation. You already indent blocks anyway; the only difference is that you don't need braces or begin/end. I also did not understand your point about "lack of whitespace" around blocks. The only difference between blocks in Python and other languages is that the block start uses a colon instead of an opening brace and you don't have a line for the closing brace. Is that closing line such a big deal for you?
        alpaca128 4y ago
        As someone who recently switched to opening curly brackets on new lines and did some Python coding last week I kind of agree - you either put in empty lines everywhere or you have a continuous block of code through all scopes. It's a matter of preference and you can still work with it of course, but I've learned to appreciate reducing code density. And regarding the syntax, using curly brackets like in C-like languages only takes one more symbol per scope and the difference in readability (where a scope ends etc.) is bigger for me. Also while indentation in Python kind of works as syntax it's not ideal as it can lead to literally invisible syntax errors, and imho the syntax isn't strict enough as Python allows you to have a different indentation width in every single scope. That said it's still a great language for little experiments. Similar to Bash, despite Bash being not the best designed language to put it mildly.
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    I think in python very easily.
  - dbrueck 4y ago
    Many reasons, many are of course pretty subjective, but it's been called 'executable pseudocode' for good reason. Out of all the languages I've used, it gets in the way the least, and often by a pretty wide margin. I agree that working with Python code from an undisciplined/sloppy/inexperienced developer can be a pain (although in those situations I've found code from those same developers in others languages to be a problem too, but maybe worse in Python? I dunno), but in the hands of a solid dev, Python code is so readable and easy to follow, that to me code in other languages often feels much noisier. YMMV of course.
  - the__alchemist 4y ago
    - 1 Numpy and Scipy are nice for both scripting, and as a super-calculator with ipython. (albeit poorly documented) - Django is a robust, batteries-included web framework that doesn't have an analog in, for example, Rust.
  - GlennS 4y ago
    Honestly I guess it's just a difference in taste/demenour. My background was originally in C# then Java (plus JavaScript on the side, since most of us have to do that), and when I first came to Python I found it to be a lovely language and a breath of fresh air. I guess I would say to me it feels neat and tidy, thoughful about interface design, and gives me a sense of quality. I get a similar feeling from Clojure (perhaps even more so). I don't find static typing as valuable as you do, and additionally I find the cost in verbosity and in time wasted solving type-checking puzzles quite painful. Perhaps if I'd spent more time with one of the more sophisticated type systems I'd feel differently (Java and C# are quite limited here), but not convinced enough to try.
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Amateur coders always have flocked to the simple and unfashionable stuff. Basic used to be big for this reason. Javascript took off for this reason as well. Web designers could just copy paste javascript fragments in their web pages and get some simple things working. And python seems to appeal to a lot of amateur coders with non computer science backgrounds. At least I know a lot of people with physics, chemistry, bio medical, etc. backgrounds that seem to mainly know python. Objectively, none of these languages are particularly good at what they do and there are other languages that tend to be preferred by people who code for a living. But these are harder to learn and have higher barrier for entry. You typically need some theoretical background and experience. I've used all of the above BTW. I learned programming using the manual that came with my Commodore 64 in the eighties (Basic, obviously). I kind of like Python for some things. Javascript is fine for simple things. None of these are my first choice of language but I can work with these languages. They are very approachable languages. Just open an editor and start adapting code. There's a lot of language snobbery out there where objectively, the advantages aren't that huge or dramatic as people like to believe.
- zamalek 4y ago
  For me: * Download and just run doesn't work. (e.g. Node, dotnet, cargo do this well). Hell, I've generally had more success with C++ in this regard. * The syntax can be used in an extremely terse way, and that terseness seems to be idiomatic.
div72 4y ago
It'd not fully solve your issue, but have you ever seen https://github.com/py2many/py2many https://github.com/py2many/py2many ?
vonwoodson 4y ago
Oh, man, have I got a treat for you: go checkout hylang.org - Hy is a lisp that (ab)uses the python AST to give you access to the entirety of python, but gives you a pretty lisp syntax.
- gleenn 4y ago
  I've always been super interested in Hy but couldn't ever get it working. Any suggestions for forums or good installation instructions or tutorials? I live Clojure and also have to deal with a lot of Python at work so would be awesome to use lispy syntax to write my Python stuff
  - danuker 4y ago
    Does this not work? `pip3 install --user hy` as mentioned in the first page of the docs: https://docs.hylang.org/en/stable/ https://docs.hylang.org/en/stable/
  - gilch 4y ago
    Hissp might be easier to get started with. It's much less complex as a whole and has pretty thorough introductory docs.
  - markjreed 4y ago
    Just `pip install hy` and then `python -mhy` to run it. Once you see how Python translates into Hy, it's pretty straightforward. (import os) (import [os.path :as op]) (with [f (open (op.join dir_name file_name) "w")] (.write f "...")) Some things you just have to learn, like using `(setv var value)` to do assignment, or the fact that `(for)` is an imperative loop while `(lfor)` is a list comprehension, but a little experimentation goes a long way and the docs are quite good.
IshKebab 4y ago
I don't see how it can though - at least it can't do it in a statically typed way because half of the Python ecosystem hasn't bothered with static types and the semantics of the type hints that do exist isn't defined. So you'll end up with everything you import being `any` which is not really any better than just using Python.
gilch 4y ago
No shortage of options, e.g. Dg, Mochi, Coconut, and Hebigo (based on Hissp[1]). [1]: https://github.com/gilch/hissp https://github.com/gilch/hissp
adsharma 4y ago
If your problem is with the runtime cost of python, do consider transpilers such as py2many that generate rust code. In order for this to succeed, python libraries would have to be rewritten without the C API in the dialect/subset of python supported. I wonder if erg could strive to use a subset of python mostly and innovate narrowly in just a couple of places to make python more functional.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  it seems like their problem is the exact opposite to your suggestion
fulafel 4y ago
For Clojure there's this: https://github.com/clj-python/libpython-clj https://github.com/clj-python/libpython-clj

At this point I'm open to try anything that will give me access to the python ecosystem without having to code in Python. From the FAQ it looks like Erg code gets transpiled to python bytecode.

adenozine 4y ago

Fable for F# is working on something like that. a link: https://fable.io/blog/2022/2022-06-06-Snake_Island_alpha.html https://fable.io/blog/2022/2022-06-06-Snake_Island_alpha.htm...

metadat 4y ago

Why so averse to direct Python?

likeabbas 4y ago
Slightly related question: why do people love Python so much? Or, any dynamically typed language? There's almost nothing that has frustrated me more in a professional setting than trying to figure out what some dynamically typed code is doing and ensuring I don't break anything by making changes.
- codedokode 4y ago
  Because you can do a lot with little typing and there are lots of great libraries. Python is probably the best choice when you need to get something done quick or calculate something when performance is not important. It is also not an exotic functional language without loops and filled with linked lists. Also, in Python integers do not overflow, unlike in Rust, C and other buggy languages. If you name a language, with high probability Python will be better in something unless it is about performance. What I don't like: no type hints in many libraries, some libraries are not type-hint friendly, lot of unnecessary dynmamic features (like being able to patch modules in runtime) and absolutely no caring about performance and being able to compile into machine code. > trying to figure out what some dynamically typed code is doing There should be type hints.
  - toomanydoubts 4y ago
    >There should be type hints. "Hey, this variable is probably of this type. Now go on, run the code and launch a debugger the same way you would if there was no hint just to make sure it's correct. Oh, and don't forget to check all the possible code paths that lead to this to make sure you've exhausted all possibilities." Don't get me wrong, type hints are cool but they're just a toy compared to proper static typing.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      > Oh, and don't forget to check all the possible code paths that lead to this to make sure you've exhausted all possibilities." This is literally what mypy does. There's no difference between a mypy-enabled codebase and a java codebase in terms of static typing (other than that mypy actually supports a generally richer type system). Like yes if you aren't validating the type hints you aren't getting the value, but if you are, you don't need to run the code! I get most of my python errors at compile time, and you can too. I promise.
      - FridgeSeal 4y ago
        Sorry, but MyPy and friends can barely hold a candle to what actual static-typing systems do - Rust, Haskell, OCaml, Typescript, even .Net (C#/F#) offer more safety and guarantees. Type hints in python are _just that_, they're hints. The whole "typed" python ecosystem relies on packages and the language using them, using them correctly, and using them consistently. In my experience so far, I've seen little widespread use, and nothing from core python, which is a huge hole IMO.
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        > Sorry, but MyPy and friends can barely hold a candle to what actual static-typing systems do - Rust, Haskell, OCaml, Typescript, even .Net (C#/F#) offer more safety and guarantees. Note that you don't include the most common static languages there (cpp, java, golang), you include languages known *specifically " for their extremely powerful type systems, one of which , just like mypy, uses gradual typing! This supports my argument!
- sdeframond 4y ago
  I believe dynamically typed languages are easier to use than old-style statically typed langages (Java, C, etc). More modern statically typed languages can be quite easy to use (I am thinking of Scala) but none provides an ecosystem as rich as python's. Plus, recent static languages (Scala, Rust, Haskell or even Elm) are more oriented toward "Software Engineers" or CS academics. Python appeals to a lot of "programmers" who's main job is actually data science, mechanical engineering, biologist...
  - epgui 4y ago
    I think the latter point hits the nail right on the head: the preference for python is probably more of a social issue than a technical one at this particular point in History. I think when FP languages and paradigms become the norm (you can quote me on this, I predict that it's only a matter of time), preferences will change. People tend to prefer what they know, and it will take some time for culture to change.
  - gilch 4y ago
    I found Scala horribly overwrought compared to either Java or Haskell. It's like it tried to mush together two different type systems and got the worst of both worlds. Languages do not need to be that complex. My next JVM language was Clojure, and I've never looked back. I'd try Kotlin before I'd go back to Scala.
- analog31 4y ago
  I have a hunch that a lot of Python users didn't carefully evaluate the language on its merits, but rather, just started using it. In my own case, I was using Visual Basic 6 before Python, and mostly Turbo Pascal before that. A huge attraction of Python was the libraries -- scipy, matplotlib, etc. In fact when a lot of people say they're using "Python," they're actually referring to Python plus a large collection of libraries that came from somewhere. It's the community. Network effect looms large. While typing is dynamic, I rarely see this being used, perhaps with the exception of identifying empty variables with None. Most identifiers are born and die the same type. It would be interesting to see how much effect dynamic typing has on the rate of programming errors. Also, for me, Jupyter is huge.
  - cpeterso 4y ago
    I suspect the same. People adopt Python because its clean syntax and REPL make the language approachable and easy to get started and then the huge library ecosystem helps you glue together (in a good way) powerful systems. But how many Python users and libraries actually use the language’s extremely dynamic runtime behavior? Something they’re paying for with a big performance penalty and surprising bugs.
    - gilch 4y ago
      Numpy uses magic methods (Python's version of operator overloading). Django uses metaclasses. Pytest dynamically rewrites assert statements using AST. I'd say it's pretty common, at least in libraries. I certainly depend on Python's dynamism when fully leveraging the REPL.
      - analog31 4y ago
        Indeed, these capabilities of the language are some of its strengths, even if we don't all trust ourselves to use them. The casual programmer doesn't know how or why numpy works, and we don't play with magic methods except out of curiosity. The people who do maintain numpy are using more formal methods to ensure its quality. In the case of Python, the things that professional caliber programmers can use to extend its functionality, and the things that the rest of us can use to be productive, are the same language and are not hidden from one another. This is not the case in some languages of the past, e.g., you could use objects in Visual Basic but not build them without another language or eventually a special version.
- VectorLock 4y ago
  >ensuring I don't break anything by making changes I think this is a problem in both static and dynamic languages and is pretty much solved in the same way: you test your code.
  - toomanydoubts 4y ago
    But is it the same problem, really? Static typing eliminates a whole class of issues that dynamic typed languages don't. Of course you can still have logical bugs, but it's definitely not the same thing. I don't know how to put it better, but you should try writing haskell sometime and you'll see what I mean.
    - gilch 4y ago
      And static languages introduce a whole class of issues that dynamic languages don't have to deal with. You have to learn a separate metalanguage just for the types that isn't expressive enough to do things that are easy in a dynamic language, and even if it were, you'd still have to write everything twice: once in the real language, and once again in the type language. And then you still have to test, don't pretend you don't. If tests are both necessary and sufficient, then why bother with the type language? The static typing is not worth the cost.
      - hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago
        So why not static with the ability to ignore hinting or similar? C# does this. I think function definitions should be statically defined, but the actual body of a function could easily stay largely dynamic.
        gilch 4y ago
        I do think that's helpful compared to the strict alternative, but much of the up-front cost is still there. You still write most things twice, and the static type checker still slows you down when prototyping. You'd still be tempted to write bad code to work around the insufficiently-expressive type language, rather than write it in the most natural way, and only give up when it's too hard. You can also approach this from the other direction: why not start with a dynamic language for the rapid prototyping and gradually introduce typing as the code stabilizes? Python and Typescript do this.
- qsort 4y ago
  - Huge ecosystem. - Common stuff (opening files, dealing with databases, string processing, math, regexps) is very easy. Sane defaults. - Works well with the existing C ecosystem. It's not a "rewrite everything in X" language. - It's everywhere, most machines run Python just fine. - It doesn't treat Windows like a second-class citizen. - It doesn't force upon you a programming model that you might or might not care about. It's not a puzzle language where everything is a monad, or everything is a class, or everything is some weird widget. Write the damn code. - I'm personally not a fan of the language itself, but it's mostly a bog-standard algol if you don't poke it too much. It's relatively standard, people just get it even if Python isn't their main language. - Very personal point, but it's the only language I can edit with a plain text editor. Think nano, vi, Windows Notepad, that kind of thing. I don't know what to tell you, maybe it's my tiny monkey brain, but I can't do the same in Java or C++. Not that it's my preferred way to edit software, but I like having that option in a pinch. At least for what I do (developer, but with a data engineering/data science flavor) the overall architecture is usually the important thing, so admittedly some downsides might hit me less. I'd still rather write medium-to-large pieces of software (say 10,000+ LOC) in something else (Java, C#, C++, something boring like that), but it's pretty much unbeatable for small programs as far as I'm concerned.
  - fezfight 4y ago
    To be fair, Microsofts citizen status is self inflicted. There was a time when they were actively hostile to programming languages not built in house. See, for example, Java. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu...
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Nah, it is only for UNIX folks that see UNIX everywhere, and start complaing when an OS isn't POSIX compatible. Even on those days there were always Java alternatives to chose from, J++ wasn't required.
      - fezfight 4y ago
- gilch 4y ago
  Python is statically typed though. [1][2][3][4] These aren't just some third-party tools bolted on. The type annotation syntax is built into the language[5] and standard library[6][7]. I personally find static typing to be more trouble than it's worth most of the time. Industry typing metalanguages are not expressive enough to deal with even fairly basic real-world programs and force you to write bad code to work around the type checker's stupidity. And, of course, you still have to write tests. Maybe someday they'll catch up to Idris. Python's static typing is no better, but at least it allows you to turn it off when it's not worth it. [1]: https://github.com/microsoft/pyright https://github.com/microsoft/pyright [2]: https://github.com/python/mypy https://github.com/python/mypy [3]: https://github.com/google/pytype https://github.com/google/pytype [4]: https://github.com/facebook/pyre-check https://github.com/facebook/pyre-check [5]: https://peps.python.org/pep-3107/ https://peps.python.org/pep-3107/ [6]: https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ https://peps.python.org/pep-0484/ [7]: https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#module-typing https://docs.python.org/3/library/typing.html#module-typing
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    > Industry typing metalanguages are not expressive enough to deal with even fairly basic real-world programs and force you to write bad code to work around the type checker's stupidity. I honestly don't see that. Could you provide some examples?
- agumonkey 4y ago
  casual and fast prototyping now you can have succint code and fast repl (ala sml) but you don't get the libs
- gilch 4y ago
  Anecdote, but I like the Python community's emphasis on "readability counts". I did not get that from e.g. Ruby. Python's internals are also relatively accessible and easy to work with, so it's smooth sailing once you have that need. The language starts out easy, and grows with you. Of the languages I've tried (and there are many), only Smalltalk and the Lisp family were comparable in expressiveness. The language mostly gets out of my way and lets me do what I want. I don't feel like I have to fight the compiler (at least until I tried Mypy) or write a lot of tediously verbose boilerplate just to get out a "Hello, World!" like I did in Java. Unlike, say, JavaScript, Python is pretty strongly typed and fails fast. The stack traces almost always point you to the exact location of the problem (unlike the JS tendency to propagate `undefined` everywhere). There aren't a lot of surprises or gotchas. I can pretty much run it in my head just by reading the code and be right most of the time. I cannot say the same for C++ or JavaScript, which naturally tend to become inscrutable without discipline.
  - smt88 4y ago
    Python is among the least-readable languages for me. The lack of whitespace and brackets around code blocks just make it look like the "wall of text" that everyone hates in emails. And then there's the fact that Python has significant characters that are literally unreadable because they're invisible (semantic whitespace).
    - maleldil 4y ago
      I never got the point against meaningful whitespace. It's indentation. You already indent blocks anyway; the only difference is that you don't need braces or begin/end. I also did not understand your point about "lack of whitespace" around blocks. The only difference between blocks in Python and other languages is that the block start uses a colon instead of an opening brace and you don't have a line for the closing brace. Is that closing line such a big deal for you?
      - alpaca128 4y ago
        As someone who recently switched to opening curly brackets on new lines and did some Python coding last week I kind of agree - you either put in empty lines everywhere or you have a continuous block of code through all scopes. It's a matter of preference and you can still work with it of course, but I've learned to appreciate reducing code density. And regarding the syntax, using curly brackets like in C-like languages only takes one more symbol per scope and the difference in readability (where a scope ends etc.) is bigger for me. Also while indentation in Python kind of works as syntax it's not ideal as it can lead to literally invisible syntax errors, and imho the syntax isn't strict enough as Python allows you to have a different indentation width in every single scope. That said it's still a great language for little experiments. Similar to Bash, despite Bash being not the best designed language to put it mildly.
- smitty1e 4y ago
  I think in python very easily.
- dbrueck 4y ago
  Many reasons, many are of course pretty subjective, but it's been called 'executable pseudocode' for good reason. Out of all the languages I've used, it gets in the way the least, and often by a pretty wide margin. I agree that working with Python code from an undisciplined/sloppy/inexperienced developer can be a pain (although in those situations I've found code from those same developers in others languages to be a problem too, but maybe worse in Python? I dunno), but in the hands of a solid dev, Python code is so readable and easy to follow, that to me code in other languages often feels much noisier. YMMV of course.
- the__alchemist 4y ago
  - 1 Numpy and Scipy are nice for both scripting, and as a super-calculator with ipython. (albeit poorly documented) - Django is a robust, batteries-included web framework that doesn't have an analog in, for example, Rust.
- GlennS 4y ago
  Honestly I guess it's just a difference in taste/demenour. My background was originally in C# then Java (plus JavaScript on the side, since most of us have to do that), and when I first came to Python I found it to be a lovely language and a breath of fresh air. I guess I would say to me it feels neat and tidy, thoughful about interface design, and gives me a sense of quality. I get a similar feeling from Clojure (perhaps even more so). I don't find static typing as valuable as you do, and additionally I find the cost in verbosity and in time wasted solving type-checking puzzles quite painful. Perhaps if I'd spent more time with one of the more sophisticated type systems I'd feel differently (Java and C# are quite limited here), but not convinced enough to try.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Amateur coders always have flocked to the simple and unfashionable stuff. Basic used to be big for this reason. Javascript took off for this reason as well. Web designers could just copy paste javascript fragments in their web pages and get some simple things working. And python seems to appeal to a lot of amateur coders with non computer science backgrounds. At least I know a lot of people with physics, chemistry, bio medical, etc. backgrounds that seem to mainly know python. Objectively, none of these languages are particularly good at what they do and there are other languages that tend to be preferred by people who code for a living. But these are harder to learn and have higher barrier for entry. You typically need some theoretical background and experience. I've used all of the above BTW. I learned programming using the manual that came with my Commodore 64 in the eighties (Basic, obviously). I kind of like Python for some things. Javascript is fine for simple things. None of these are my first choice of language but I can work with these languages. They are very approachable languages. Just open an editor and start adapting code. There's a lot of language snobbery out there where objectively, the advantages aren't that huge or dramatic as people like to believe.
zamalek 4y ago
For me: * Download and just run doesn't work. (e.g. Node, dotnet, cargo do this well). Hell, I've generally had more success with C++ in this regard. * The syntax can be used in an extremely terse way, and that terseness seems to be idiomatic.

div72 4y ago

It'd not fully solve your issue, but have you ever seen https://github.com/py2many/py2many https://github.com/py2many/py2many ?

vonwoodson 4y ago

Oh, man, have I got a treat for you: go checkout hylang.org - Hy is a lisp that (ab)uses the python AST to give you access to the entirety of python, but gives you a pretty lisp syntax.

gleenn 4y ago
I've always been super interested in Hy but couldn't ever get it working. Any suggestions for forums or good installation instructions or tutorials? I live Clojure and also have to deal with a lot of Python at work so would be awesome to use lispy syntax to write my Python stuff
- danuker 4y ago
  Does this not work? `pip3 install --user hy` as mentioned in the first page of the docs: https://docs.hylang.org/en/stable/ https://docs.hylang.org/en/stable/
- gilch 4y ago
  Hissp might be easier to get started with. It's much less complex as a whole and has pretty thorough introductory docs.
- markjreed 4y ago
  Just `pip install hy` and then `python -mhy` to run it. Once you see how Python translates into Hy, it's pretty straightforward. (import os) (import [os.path :as op]) (with [f (open (op.join dir_name file_name) "w")] (.write f "...")) Some things you just have to learn, like using `(setv var value)` to do assignment, or the fact that `(for)` is an imperative loop while `(lfor)` is a list comprehension, but a little experimentation goes a long way and the docs are quite good.

IshKebab 4y ago

I don't see how it can though - at least it can't do it in a statically typed way because half of the Python ecosystem hasn't bothered with static types and the semantics of the type hints that do exist isn't defined. So you'll end up with everything you import being `any` which is not really any better than just using Python.

gilch 4y ago

No shortage of options, e.g. Dg, Mochi, Coconut, and Hebigo (based on Hissp[1]). [1]: https://github.com/gilch/hissp https://github.com/gilch/hissp

adsharma 4y ago

If your problem is with the runtime cost of python, do consider transpilers such as py2many that generate rust code. In order for this to succeed, python libraries would have to be rewritten without the C API in the dialect/subset of python supported. I wonder if erg could strive to use a subset of python mostly and innovate narrowly in just a couple of places to make python more functional.

whimsicalism 4y ago
it seems like their problem is the exact opposite to your suggestion

fulafel 4y ago

For Clojure there's this: https://github.com/clj-python/libpython-clj https://github.com/clj-python/libpython-clj