Dynamic typing is shit and only good for toy programs. Indenting a line incorrectly breaks your entire program. Guido is a retard. The sort of smug look you imagine python coders have when they think about their shit language.
See that rollercoaster? It's the Steel Python. And in order to ride it, we must each purchase tickets. With your money. In order to ride it. That there is the plan.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-08 17:47
ONE WORD, THE FORCED INDENTATION OF CODE, THREAD OVER "I got this pregnant/prog/nant snake; stay surrounded by long hairs A plethora of maniacs and spiral stairs" -Death Grips (RIP)
Python is not terrible. Dynamic typing has its use. Indentation is better left to a text editor. Somehow it was never a problem for me. Not fucking once. I am using GNU Emacs with python-mode.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-09 9:39
Python can have dynamic scope. In Python, all arguments are named. Very handy. Code reflection facilities are second only to Lisp.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-09 10:34
>>7 Third to Lisp and Io, bitch. Or actually, fourth to Lisp, Io and Nemerle.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-09 12:03
>>8 Nobody remembers Nemerle. IO is worse than Python.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-09 12:05
>>8 Not to mention that its javashit-like approach to type instantiation is executed even worse than in JS itself.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-09 12:06
>>5 I'm in your area. I'm in, your area. I know the first two numbers. Check'em.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-09 20:27
Useful trick. If you want to make it possible to iterate over data from instances of your classes, but namedtuple is not enough (e. g. because you want to add asserts for constructor args), implement __iter__ for it, like this: class Faggot(object): def __init__(self, shit, penis): assert shit != penis self.shit = sht self.penis = penis def __iter__(self): yield self.shit yield self.penis
p = Faggot(1, 2) q = Faggot(2, 3) for x, y in [p, q]: print x print y
>>13 How do you iterate over a structure by binding more than one variable in your favourite C++11? Wait... for (auto x : cool_instance)... no... oh wait you fucking can't. Python is very practical in this particular case, and in many many others. I don't write mission-critical stuff in python, but it saves me days and days and days when prototyping or making throw-away below-500-loc programs.
>>13 Not to mention there are libraries for everything. Once I got a file which turned out to be a pcap dump. In less than 15 minutes I had a program which read this file and decoded the protocol used there (a custom, but simple one. most of these 15 minutes I have spent determining what each packet did). What other language, other than perl, gives you these powers?
When someone attacks your favorite language's shitty syntax, replying "It was never a problem for me, I use GNU Emacs with javashit-mode" means the discussion is over.
Mission critical refers to any factor of a system (equipment, process, procedure, software, etc.) whose failure will result in the failure of business operations. That is, it is critical to the organization's "mission."[1]
Thus, if your software malfunction results in the failure of your WoW party's raid, this software is mission-critical.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-10 19:39
>>20 Phantasies of an MMO slave. Your pathetic pharming and mob-masturbation is ho serial business, just a waste of time.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-11 1:05
>>6 I learned from /prog/ that any argument attacking any language's syntax can be easily refuted by a simple "It was never a problem for me, I am using GNU Emacs with language-mode"
>>23 screw you, meatbag. computers are geniuses and will be the next noble prize winners and shall become the ultimate intelligent sextoy replacing your hand at both jacking off and programming.
>>22 It just means that it's not the language that sucks, it's you who suck.
>>25 Not me. But despite him being a retard, Python is a practical instrument.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-11 19:07
>>26 It's probably better to have zero macro support than faulty macro support in Python. If you want a language with full macro features, use can use Lisp. If you want a simple and well defined language with batteries included, use Python.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-11 19:23
>>27 No, it means that the language sucks. Just because there are shit-eaters who feel okay with it in some editors doesn'm mean it doesn't suck.
Python is a practical instrument.
Common Lisp is a practical instrument. So why use Python?
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) lispers believe this is beautiful
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-11 19:30
>>30 Python is #1 language for scientists today, and scientists are smarter than programmers, so bow down and accept Python as your Prime Instrument from now on. Worship the Scientists, lowly engineer.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-11 23:22
>>31 Hell yeah we do. S-exps are the most natural and fundamental representation of code. Without s-exps, you're looking at some overly complex, artificial syntactic forms. You have to learn tens of syntaxes that distract you from the true, universal nature of code. But with s-exps, you just see the code as it really is. You learn to discern universal patterns of code, you memorize code easily and start understanding it on a level impossible with the redundant and complex syntaxes.
I use Abstract Syntax Notation (ASN.1) for my IBM SUSE ENTERPRISE MANAGMENT APPLICATIONS written in COBOL because it is the universal standard, just like XML but even more.
>>29 I was using clisp before I finally switched over to Python. Because Python is not that fucking quirky and at times PITA to use. And especially distribute your shit later.
Name:
Anonymous2014-11-13 1:15
>>31 That's invalid in any lisp I know of, so no it's not beautiful.