4 ms·

> like Javascript, in many ways it's a neat little language, but manipulating the small little ad-hoc data structures (arrays and hashes, and combinations of t

> like Javascript, in many ways it's a neat little language, but manipulating the small little ad-hoc data structures (arrays and hashes, and combinations of them) that seems to be half of most programming tasks is definitely a step backwards compared to Python. I'm a Python fan but I can't disagree more on that point. Python has terrible lambdas, and poor idioms when working with collections (list iteration over chainable/fluid interfaces). Underscore.js, which at this point stands for 'idiomatic JS for collections', and the ES5 methods on arrays (filter/map) which are largely supported now provide a better way to handle arrays & hashes than idiomatic Python. With ES6 fat-arrow functions it's even better. It's one of Python's biggest weaknesses when compared to other dynamic languages IMO -- that the idiomatic way to deal with 'collections' is not a chainable/fluid pattern, but instead to do multiple list comprehensions, or use the ugly filter-plus-lambda patterns which compose badly. Double evens in a list: ES6: [1, 2, 3] .filter(x => x % 2 == 0) .map(x => x * 2) ES5: [1, 2, 3] .filter(function(x) { return x % 2 == 0 }) .map(function(x) { return x * 2 }) Python: map(lambda x: x * 2, filter(lambda x: x % 2 == 0, [1, 2, 3])) # or evens = [x for x in [1, 2, 3] if x % 2 == 0] [x*2 for x in evens] The ES6 & ES5 JS examples are both clearly superior syntax IMO. More readable and the anonymous functions support multi-line so extend to more use-cases. EDIT: Removed the word 'objective' because I'm talking syntax.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> ES6 & ES5 JS are both objectively better IMO. This sentence reveals a deep misunderstand of either what "objectively" means. (FWIW, I prefer the ES5/ES6 syntax to Python here, as well; I just don't mistake that preference for something other than subjective.)
- nilliams 11y ago
  As humans, there is always subjectivity, even in things we declare objective. I'm willing to admit that :) It's easy to pedantically point out I used 'opinion' in the same sentence as 'objective' but I'd hope you could apply 'the context of programming' to gather what I actually meant. When we say 'objective' over matters of syntax I tend to think of 'If you put N programmers in a room they'd all agree this was better syntax'. That's how I feel about the above examples I posted. That said I've edited my comment so I don't inflame other commenters to point out my glaring contradiction :)
SoftwareMaven 11y ago
Doing good Python would help. You don't need the backslash on the first, making it a little cleaner: map(lambda x: x * 2, filter(lambda x: x % 2 == 0, [1, 2, 3])) But the list comprehension version is just completely wrong: [x*2 for x in [1, 2, 3] if x % 2 == 0] Which, in our subjective world, is cleaner than the ES5 version and almost as clean as the ES6 version.
- nilliams 11y ago
  > You don't need the backslash on the first, making it a little cleaner I was not trying to illustrate that the backslash made it ugly (I've removed it - I was pasting from a repl). It's ugly because of Python's lambda syntax and the fact it does not compose 'sensibly', as compared to fluid interfaces. The logic is back-to-front for one. > But the list comprehension version is just completely wrong: No, it's not at all wrong. Your one-liner is not better and (I hope) would probably upset most teams for being less clear. I was providing a like-for-like example. The multi-lining is not the criticism of the Python version. It's the composition that's at fault, the fact it does not feel like 'two coherent operations over a list' with two distinct conditionals. The ES5/ES6 examples demonstrate this much more clearly IMO.
  - 59nadir 11y ago
    What you're saying, then, is that it's terribly confusing [for you] when someone uses a list comprehension fully? Presumably, these also are not completely clear to you: > [x * 2 | x <- [1, 2, 3, 4], even x] [4,8] > [x * 2 | x <- filter even [1, 2, 3, 4]] [4,8] What, exactly, is not clear here? This is the essence of composition; to use clearly defined things together. I can appreciate a good pipeline as much as the next guy, but to say that this is somehow more complicated and hard to read is to overstretch a little bit. To say that a pretty uncluttered list comprehension is some challenge to read is just hyperbolic. These pipelines, even with newlines, can get pretty long and terrible too.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> ES6 & ES5 JS are both objectively better IMO. This sentence reveals a deep misunderstand of either what "objectively" means. (FWIW, I prefer the ES5/ES6 syntax to Python here, as well; I just don't mistake that preference for something other than subjective.)

nilliams 11y ago
As humans, there is always subjectivity, even in things we declare objective. I'm willing to admit that :) It's easy to pedantically point out I used 'opinion' in the same sentence as 'objective' but I'd hope you could apply 'the context of programming' to gather what I actually meant. When we say 'objective' over matters of syntax I tend to think of 'If you put N programmers in a room they'd all agree this was better syntax'. That's how I feel about the above examples I posted. That said I've edited my comment so I don't inflame other commenters to point out my glaring contradiction :)

SoftwareMaven 11y ago

Doing good Python would help. You don't need the backslash on the first, making it a little cleaner: map(lambda x: x * 2, filter(lambda x: x % 2 == 0, [1, 2, 3])) But the list comprehension version is just completely wrong: [x*2 for x in [1, 2, 3] if x % 2 == 0] Which, in our subjective world, is cleaner than the ES5 version and almost as clean as the ES6 version.

nilliams 11y ago
> You don't need the backslash on the first, making it a little cleaner I was not trying to illustrate that the backslash made it ugly (I've removed it - I was pasting from a repl). It's ugly because of Python's lambda syntax and the fact it does not compose 'sensibly', as compared to fluid interfaces. The logic is back-to-front for one. > But the list comprehension version is just completely wrong: No, it's not at all wrong. Your one-liner is not better and (I hope) would probably upset most teams for being less clear. I was providing a like-for-like example. The multi-lining is not the criticism of the Python version. It's the composition that's at fault, the fact it does not feel like 'two coherent operations over a list' with two distinct conditionals. The ES5/ES6 examples demonstrate this much more clearly IMO.
- 59nadir 11y ago
  What you're saying, then, is that it's terribly confusing [for you] when someone uses a list comprehension fully? Presumably, these also are not completely clear to you: > [x * 2 | x <- [1, 2, 3, 4], even x] [4,8] > [x * 2 | x <- filter even [1, 2, 3, 4]] [4,8] What, exactly, is not clear here? This is the essence of composition; to use clearly defined things together. I can appreciate a good pipeline as much as the next guy, but to say that this is somehow more complicated and hard to read is to overstretch a little bit. To say that a pretty uncluttered list comprehension is some challenge to read is just hyperbolic. These pipelines, even with newlines, can get pretty long and terrible too.