pansa2

18 ms·

241.
by pansa2 2y ago
> Proposing syntax as noisy as […] is just another sign the designers don't get it. Are you objecting to the use of `\(…)` here instead of `{…}`? Because of the extra character or because of the need to nest parentheses?
242.
by pansa2 2y ago
> Readability counts Almost all Python programmers should be familiar with list comprehensions - this should be easy to understand: parts = [... if isinstance(item, Interpolation) else ... for item in template] Instead the exa
243.
by pansa2 2y ago
> Five years is a very long time in technology. But it's not a long time in the OP's field of science. Unfortunately despite a strong preference for Python in the scientific community, the language's design team seem to
244.
by pansa2 2y ago
I think for someone with a basic knowledge of both languages, the Ruby version is more understandable than the Python. It's a combination of basic Ruby features, whereas Python's `match` statement is much more obscure - it isn&#x2
245.
by pansa2 2y ago
The original code does the same! All the real work is inside `convert` and `format`, it just adds another layer of complexity on top. The ideal version has the same behaviour and shows that the extra complexity is unnecessary.
246.
by pansa2 2y ago
Yes there is, when it compiles source code to bytecode.
247.
by pansa2 2y ago
I don’t think I’ve ever used % formatting in Python - what makes it safer than `format`?
248.
by pansa2 2y ago
IMO it's much closer to the ideal way to write the function, which would be something like: fn stringify(item) => item.is_a(String) then item else item.value.convert(item.conversion).format(item.format_spec)
249.
by pansa2 2y ago
> I would still use pattern matching for branching and destructing, but I’d put it in a helper Yeah, using a helper function makes things much clearer. To be honest though, I'm not a huge fan of using either `isinstance` (which is
250.
by pansa2 2y ago
Ah, yes - good point!
251.
by pansa2 2y ago
> It’s starting to feel like a language designed by committee, which it basically is. That's exactly what it is. It's just that they use the word "council" instead of "committee".
252.
by pansa2 2y ago
IMO comprehensions like `[x**2 for x in range(4)]` would be better written as `[for x in range(4): x**2]`. That would make the mapping between a comprehension and the equivalent loop much clearer, especially once you use nested loops and&#x
253.
by pansa2 2y ago
Your example is interesting - `join`, a generator expression and a ternary, and Python requires us to write all of them inside-out. It's a shame we can't write that in a more natural order, something like: def f(template):
254.
by pansa2 2y ago
> This is how Python has always been. Nah, idiomatic Python always used to prefer comprehensions over explicit loops. This is just the `match` statement making code 3x longer than it needs to be.
255.
by pansa2 2y ago
Putting aside template strings themselves for the moment, I'm stunned by some of the code in this PEP. It's so verbose! For example, "Implementing f-strings with t-strings": def f(template: Template) -> str:
256.
by pansa2 2y ago
Recent versions of CPython do have an experimental JIT compiler. I'm not sure how widely-used it is, though. https://peps.python.org/pep-0744/
257.
by pansa2 2y ago
> most interpreted code uses a JIT native compiler at this point I suspect most JavaScript code is JIT-compiled - but most Python, Ruby etc is interpreted (via bytecode).
258.
by pansa2 2y ago
This isn't a "party trick" with `global`, it's a fundamental hole in the type system: class C: def __init__(self) -> None: self.i : int | list[int] = 0 def foo(self) -> None:
259.
by pansa2 2y ago
> not sure if these are checked at compile-time, run-time, or both It looks like Koto only checks types at run-time. That means its type annotations are essentially shorthand for something like Python's `if not isinstance(...): ra
260.
by pansa2 2y ago
It says Coffeescript and Moonscript influenced Koto's syntax, which is a little worrying. IMO those languages are a little too flexible and sail too close to ambiguity - very small changes to code can sometimes radically change its m
261.
by pansa2 2y ago
> It seems every scripting language does duck/dynamic typing (as far as I can tell this applies to Koto). It looks like Koto supports type hints - not sure if these are checked at compile-time, run-time, or both. > I don’t und
262.
by pansa2 2y ago
> However error case looks to be try catch which is a deal breaker Wren uses coroutines ("fibers") for error handling, which is unusual. But yes, ultimately it does seem to be equivalent to try-catch.
263.
by pansa2 2y ago
Wren is dynamically-typed, though
264.
by pansa2 2y ago
> parameters should be contravariant Always? In that case, do you know why Dart has a `covariant` keyword [0], which makes function parameters covariant? [0] https://dart.dev/language/type-system#covariant-keyword
265.
by pansa2 2y ago
> > For function parameters, doesn't it depend on how the parameter is used? > I don't think so, but maybe there's specific circumstances I don't know of? I don't know specific circumstances either, but
266.
by pansa2 2y ago
> So don't do this then? Don't do what? - Don't write unsound code? There's no way to know until you run the program and find out your `int` is actually a `list`. - Don't assume type annotations are correct? Th
267.
by pansa2 2y ago
> Whoa there - those are very different claims! I suspect that the stronger claim is true - but even the weaker claim would invalidate the article's statements that "existing programming languages have little or no subtyping&
268.
by pansa2 2y ago
> existing programming languages have little or no subtyping [...] If you remember the fad for Object Oriented Programming I was under the impression that even today, most code is written in an object-oriented style (or at least, writt
269.
by pansa2 2y ago
> function returns should be contravariant I'm not very familiar with these relations, but shouldn't function returns be covariant ? `String => Cat` is a subtype of `String => Animal`? > Function parameters should
270.
by pansa2 2y ago
> 100 = 3*4*...*50*50*...99 You can’t replace 2*100 with 50, it has to be 4*50. But there’s no reason you have to divide by 2 at all - why not replace 2*99 with 6*33?

More ›