4 ms·

Executive summary: If you don't like part of the language, it is really easy to add your own hack and make it worse ;-) Really, you should trust the core deve

Executive summary: If you don't like part of the language, it is really easy to add your own hack and make it worse ;-) Really, you should trust the core developers on this one. Empty set literals are missing from Python for a reason.

philipbjorge 14y ago
I just wish someone could find the old discussions... The main argument I could see against empty set literals was how wrong it felt adding it to the grammar. Even adding 3 lines of code for the feature, felt like it was just creating chaos in a zen-like codebase.
- antfarm 14y ago
  http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/006620.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/0066... http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2008-January/001316.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2008-January/0...
  - andrelaszlo 14y ago
    In both of these replies, Guido is referring to older discussions. I'm curious now.
    - antfarm 14y ago
      http://mail.python.org/pipermail//python-3000/2006-August/002786.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail//python-3000/2006-August/00... http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/001400.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/0014...
- nnq 14y ago
  imagine that the "chaos" you are adding to the implementation is actually subtracted from its "interface" and consequently from all code that will be written thereon... sometimes you need to "add complexity"/"destroy order" to create more order at a higher level :)
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
nnq 14y ago
You're right on trusting the core developers, but "for a reason" type arguments are not the way to do things. I love Python because it's so practical and manages to stop codebases from devolving into overengineered incomprehensible messes, but I hate tons lots of things about it, and more generally I hate its "worse is better" approach (http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html) to many things (because for Guido, if "worse" is "simpler to explain and implement", he always chooses it, always implementation simplicity over nice "interface" features and also over "interface" consistency... I almost want to shoot the man when I read arguments like http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358 http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358 coming from a very smart person like him). OP's complaint is valid imho, consistency is f important, because small inconsistencies pile up and make a language harder to learn (yeah, you don't notice them once they're in your "muscle memory", but "learnability" is important for a language and this is why I like Python and I hope it doesn't lose this quality by slowly accreting inconsistencies). Hopefully his blogpost is a message that reaches Guido and the core developers and nudges them even a little bit towards a better path!

philipbjorge 14y ago

I just wish someone could find the old discussions... The main argument I could see against empty set literals was how wrong it felt adding it to the grammar. Even adding 3 lines of code for the feature, felt like it was just creating chaos in a zen-like codebase.

antfarm 14y ago
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/006620.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2007-April/0066... http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2008-January/001316.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2008-January/0...
- andrelaszlo 14y ago
  In both of these replies, Guido is referring to older discussions. I'm curious now.
  - antfarm 14y ago
    http://mail.python.org/pipermail//python-3000/2006-August/002786.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail//python-3000/2006-August/00... http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/001400.html http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2006-April/0014...
nnq 14y ago
imagine that the "chaos" you are adding to the implementation is actually subtracted from its "interface" and consequently from all code that will be written thereon... sometimes you need to "add complexity"/"destroy order" to create more order at a higher level :)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

nnq 14y ago

You're right on trusting the core developers, but "for a reason" type arguments are not the way to do things. I love Python because it's so practical and manages to stop codebases from devolving into overengineered incomprehensible messes, but I hate tons lots of things about it, and more generally I hate its "worse is better" approach (http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html) to many things (because for Guido, if "worse" is "simpler to explain and implement", he always chooses it, always implementation simplicity over nice "interface" features and also over "interface" consistency... I almost want to shoot the man when I read arguments like http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358 http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358 coming from a very smart person like him). OP's complaint is valid imho, consistency is f important, because small inconsistencies pile up and make a language harder to learn (yeah, you don't notice them once they're in your "muscle memory", but "learnability" is important for a language and this is why I like Python and I hope it doesn't lose this quality by slowly accreting inconsistencies). Hopefully his blogpost is a message that reaches Guido and the core developers and nudges them even a little bit towards a better path!