4 ms·

I hate when people say "python is a simple language" when having this opinion requires ignoring everything about how python is designed (more like patched toget

by epgui 3y ago

I hate when people say "python is a simple language" when having this opinion requires ignoring everything about how python is designed (more like patched together), and requires using some non-standard definition of "simple".

sdmike1 3y ago
I think the non-standard definition of simple is the wrong way of looking at it. people 's thought about what is simple and what is complex is different from person to person. C. is a simple language from a "what primitives do you have to work with?" perspective, however, to knock on effects from those primitives, then the interaction of that code with other code is far from simple. in the same case, python prevents a simple interface to do a large number of fairly common tasks, parsing a structured text file, input and output into various data formats, and the tools to build upon your work as it gets more complex. I'm curious to know what your definition of simple is?
- xwowsersx 3y ago
  > in the same case, python prevents a simple interface to do a large number of fairly common tasks I assume this should read "presents* a simple interface..."?
  - sdmike1 3y ago
    Yes, I was using speech to text and did not proof read closely enough.
- epgui 3y ago
  In the context of programming language design, a lisp like Clojure would be simple if you ignored all the java things. Haskell is a simple-ish language (despite popular misconceptions). For me, “simple” needs to be distinguished from “familiar”. Most of the time, people think whatever is familiar is simple, but that just makes the word “simple” less useful. The von Neumann style of programming introduces tremendous complexity. I would probably agree that C is simple in design. I’m not sure, because I’m not extremely proficient in it, but I think I agree. Although it has tons of complexities in practical use… So perhaps it’s easier to speak of (and compare) the simplicity of higher-level languages.
seunosewa 3y ago
It really was a very simple, well put together language. I think the goal of simplicity has been abandoned. The := operator, introduction of declared types, the way that generators became extremely complex to make them work as microthreads, and the division of python codebases between async code and regular code, which aren't compatible with each other, are proof of this.
- epgui 3y ago
  > It really was a very simple, well put together language This is the very premise that I question. Simple in comparison to what? Javascript? I'd actually put python and javascript more or less in the same ballpark of complexity (neither of these are simple languages). Look carefully at the design of something like Clojure (which has constraints, eg.: around java interop, of a sort that python did not have), and it's hard to unsee all of core python's accidental complexity.

by epgui 3y ago

sdmike1 3y ago

I think the non-standard definition of simple is the wrong way of looking at it. people 's thought about what is simple and what is complex is different from person to person. C. is a simple language from a "what primitives do you have to work with?" perspective, however, to knock on effects from those primitives, then the interaction of that code with other code is far from simple. in the same case, python prevents a simple interface to do a large number of fairly common tasks, parsing a structured text file, input and output into various data formats, and the tools to build upon your work as it gets more complex. I'm curious to know what your definition of simple is?

xwowsersx 3y ago
> in the same case, python prevents a simple interface to do a large number of fairly common tasks I assume this should read "presents* a simple interface..."?
- sdmike1 3y ago
  Yes, I was using speech to text and did not proof read closely enough.
epgui 3y ago
In the context of programming language design, a lisp like Clojure would be simple if you ignored all the java things. Haskell is a simple-ish language (despite popular misconceptions). For me, “simple” needs to be distinguished from “familiar”. Most of the time, people think whatever is familiar is simple, but that just makes the word “simple” less useful. The von Neumann style of programming introduces tremendous complexity. I would probably agree that C is simple in design. I’m not sure, because I’m not extremely proficient in it, but I think I agree. Although it has tons of complexities in practical use… So perhaps it’s easier to speak of (and compare) the simplicity of higher-level languages.

seunosewa 3y ago

It really was a very simple, well put together language. I think the goal of simplicity has been abandoned. The := operator, introduction of declared types, the way that generators became extremely complex to make them work as microthreads, and the division of python codebases between async code and regular code, which aren't compatible with each other, are proof of this.

epgui 3y ago
> It really was a very simple, well put together language This is the very premise that I question. Simple in comparison to what? Javascript? I'd actually put python and javascript more or less in the same ballpark of complexity (neither of these are simple languages). Look carefully at the design of something like Clojure (which has constraints, eg.: around java interop, of a sort that python did not have), and it's hard to unsee all of core python's accidental complexity.