2 ms·

Shorter but, "ad hoc" like everything in Python (the reason I never liked it). The Ruby version looks like math, if you know the concepts of map and reduce it's

by antirez 17y ago

Shorter but, "ad hoc" like everything in Python (the reason I never liked it). The Ruby version looks like math, if you know the concepts of map and reduce it's trivial to understand what's going on. Compare this with sum() + "for n" and "xrange". Also if I remember some Python correctly "xrange" is almost like "range" but it's something like a lazy version, another ad-hoc stuff. Sorry, didn't resisted.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Each to his/her own. This isn't intended to be a language war. If you prefer map and reduce then you can have them: >>> from math import pi >>> add = float.__add__ >>> def f(x): return (pi*x)**(-2) >>> 1/reduce(add, map(f,range(1,1000)) ) 6.0036796863530508 Or, as a one-liner: >>> 1/reduce(float.__add__, map(lambda x:1.0/(3.1416*x)**2,range(1,1000)) ) People who aren't mathmos often find the list comprehensions more comprehensible, hence the version I wrote not as a competitor, but as an alternative, to yours. Horses for courses. Personally, I've found the Python version to look more like math when I choose to express it like math, but I'm programming, so why not make it look like what I'm doing? Golf is a stupid game in programming. Understandability is the goal, but different readers find different things natural. That's never going to go away.
- antirez 17y ago
  I guess it's really a matter of tastes indeed. My point is that, no matter the fact that I can try to mimic the Python idiomatic way or the reverse, there is a real difference between this languages, and is a difference that I see in many other languages, splitting them into two families: the "tools" languages that try to provide already build abstractions able to solve common problems, and the "concepts" languages where there are just a few rules you can combine to solve problems. I love the latter approach.

by antirez 17y ago

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

Each to his/her own. This isn't intended to be a language war. If you prefer map and reduce then you can have them: >>> from math import pi >>> add = float.__add__ >>> def f(x): return (pi*x)**(-2) >>> 1/reduce(add, map(f,range(1,1000)) ) 6.0036796863530508 Or, as a one-liner: >>> 1/reduce(float.__add__, map(lambda x:1.0/(3.1416*x)**2,range(1,1000)) ) People who aren't mathmos often find the list comprehensions more comprehensible, hence the version I wrote not as a competitor, but as an alternative, to yours. Horses for courses. Personally, I've found the Python version to look more like math when I choose to express it like math, but I'm programming, so why not make it look like what I'm doing? Golf is a stupid game in programming. Understandability is the goal, but different readers find different things natural. That's never going to go away.

antirez 17y ago
I guess it's really a matter of tastes indeed. My point is that, no matter the fact that I can try to mimic the Python idiomatic way or the reverse, there is a real difference between this languages, and is a difference that I see in many other languages, splitting them into two families: the "tools" languages that try to provide already build abstractions able to solve common problems, and the "concepts" languages where there are just a few rules you can combine to solve problems. I love the latter approach.