3 ms·

One of the big issues with the fp javascript trend was that coding patterns which work well in languages like closure or Haskell had a kind of "let's shoehorn t

One of the big issues with the fp javascript trend was that coding patterns which work well in languages like closure or Haskell had a kind of "let's shoehorn this into js". There was a tonne of blogspot on "how to write functional javascript" that followed this pattern of currying all the time in a language where it just doesn't result in particularly readable code. I'm glad it's falling out of fashion.

at_a_remove 3y ago
One of my subtle peeves is people who loved doing A Thing in one language feel like they have to cram it into the next language they move to, whether or not it works. Python is becoming a victim of this weird habit.
- thristian 3y ago
  "...the determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language."
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    And you know I originally made that mistake! Only with Pascal. I was hoping for functions and procedures in Python, but I eventually had to learn that Python isn't about that. I had to take the language on its own terms.
    - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
      Pascal was a peak programming language IMO, everything went downhill from there ...
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  What's bad and happening to Python? If it's type hints, they're an invaluable addition for large codebases IMO, and they're entirely optional unless you set up tooling to enforce them.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    I will never make the tactical mistake of pointing to a single thing. Too easy to bikeshed. No, I just keep pointing back to the idea that there should be one obvious way to do "it," whatever it is you need. As people vote for their favorite whatever from another language, the number of options of how to do something increases, drastically. The reason for a "language of mostly idioms" (maybe not to "Shaka, when the walls fell" level) is that we must read and maintain our code. I am a Perl refugee. It had the opposite philosophy: many ways to skin a cat. The result was a write-once, read-only-in-abject-terror language. You never knew if someone decided it was Code Golf Day and they wanted to try to cram in a dozen things into a single string of executable line noise. I think Python is (slowly) abandoning some of the PEP 20 precepts one hardly-objectionable feature at a time.
    - da39a3ee 3y ago
      > I will never make the tactical mistake of pointing to a single thing. Too easy to bikeshed. If you won't say what you're talking about then please stop commenting here.
      - abbadadda 3y ago
        I think you missed the point re: bikeshedding
        da39a3ee 3y ago
        The way that gp said "tactical" indicates that their interest is in winning personal battles rather than promoting interesting community discussion.
        at_a_remove 3y ago
        I was hoping for forestall pointless discussions. Any single feature recently added would find an advocate and a defender. Therefore, selecting one of the bunch is a mistake because it does not focus on the actual problem: the pack of features, plural, getting added in. It is like someone dumping a ton of sand in your driveway. "Surely you cannot object to this grain of sand. Or that one. Or this one over here." The problem is in the aggregate.

at_a_remove 3y ago

One of my subtle peeves is people who loved doing A Thing in one language feel like they have to cram it into the next language they move to, whether or not it works. Python is becoming a victim of this weird habit.

thristian 3y ago
"...the determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language."
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  And you know I originally made that mistake! Only with Pascal. I was hoping for functions and procedures in Python, but I eventually had to learn that Python isn't about that. I had to take the language on its own terms.
  - EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
    Pascal was a peak programming language IMO, everything went downhill from there ...
EdwardDiego 3y ago
What's bad and happening to Python? If it's type hints, they're an invaluable addition for large codebases IMO, and they're entirely optional unless you set up tooling to enforce them.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  I will never make the tactical mistake of pointing to a single thing. Too easy to bikeshed. No, I just keep pointing back to the idea that there should be one obvious way to do "it," whatever it is you need. As people vote for their favorite whatever from another language, the number of options of how to do something increases, drastically. The reason for a "language of mostly idioms" (maybe not to "Shaka, when the walls fell" level) is that we must read and maintain our code. I am a Perl refugee. It had the opposite philosophy: many ways to skin a cat. The result was a write-once, read-only-in-abject-terror language. You never knew if someone decided it was Code Golf Day and they wanted to try to cram in a dozen things into a single string of executable line noise. I think Python is (slowly) abandoning some of the PEP 20 precepts one hardly-objectionable feature at a time.
  - da39a3ee 3y ago
    > I will never make the tactical mistake of pointing to a single thing. Too easy to bikeshed. If you won't say what you're talking about then please stop commenting here.
    - abbadadda 3y ago
      I think you missed the point re: bikeshedding
      - da39a3ee 3y ago
        The way that gp said "tactical" indicates that their interest is in winning personal battles rather than promoting interesting community discussion.
        at_a_remove 3y ago
        I was hoping for forestall pointless discussions. Any single feature recently added would find an advocate and a defender. Therefore, selecting one of the bunch is a mistake because it does not focus on the actual problem: the pack of features, plural, getting added in. It is like someone dumping a ton of sand in your driveway. "Surely you cannot object to this grain of sand. Or that one. Or this one over here." The problem is in the aggregate.