[talk] Python

[Edward Capriolo]

Also what you think is "readable" also is mostly about what you are
familiar with. Many people claim lisp like languages are very readable
because there is only "one form". However I find it difficult to grok
code-as-data.

As it relates to the present conversation, I find languages with no
explicit types confusing.

Take this:
def delete(mylist, item):

VS.

void delete(List<Integer> item, Integer item)

Mostly because in larger code bases if there is no direct test calling the
method it may be hard to understand exactly what types the arguments are.

You could argue that Clojure has a nice solution here. They allow type
less coding, however typing can be applied as an optimization. Clojure also
makes documentation a 1st class citizen by making documentation part of the
language rather than some afterthought like text inside /* */ that may or
may not follow a specific format.

I generally hate reading other peoples code and doing code reviews. Provide
me clear interfaces and unit tests, I dont want to go over code like a CP 1
teacher.

Once someone deployed something that I code reviewed. It crashed and
burned, and when I got there case about it they said, "Well you reviewed
it!"
Like somehow me looking at something for 1 hour that took someone else 1
week to write was going to find the hidden bugs. I told him, I'm not going
to review any more, I'm not your crutch. You are just going to have that
won't fail.You are going to have to write unit tests or do manual testing
to find edge cases. If i spend all day review code and finding other
peoples bugs I wont have time for my work.

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Sujit K M <kmsujit at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I agree with whole of the comments except for the one below.
>
>> when you tackle a task, like java, there's just a ton of libraries that
>> you can leverage off of...
>>
>
> You would find tonnes of packages in Python too. But Java for instance, In
> my job, Where I deal
> with services, I find people to be suffering from an IN/OUT Syndrome where
> in all the work they
> carry out is to map an
> input/configurations/database/configurations/partial output and repeat.
> This according to me is bad.
>
> The other thing I find difficult with Java is that these tonnes of
> libraries, have documentation which
> is not worth a penny or useful. I mean does Apache for instance provide
> performance issues as a
> part of documentation. I find testers who also should have a part in
> documentation, not doing this.
> Un-Chartered waters I guess.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2016 10:07 AM, A. Jesse Jiryu Davis wrote:
>>
>> I agree — Python is designed with the philosophy that "readability
>> counts" and it is successful at that. Python code is some of the most
>> readable of any programming language. The language also has disadvantages,
>> of course, but its clarity is unsurpassed.
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Sujit K M <kmsujit at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I found python projects to be very good from an code review perspective.
>>> What I found is Python Language makes it simple to without an IDE simpler
>>> code to review. I find Java Projects to be the most difficult to do code
>>> review.
>>>
>>> What is the general view on this? Or is it one of my hallucinations?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sujit K M
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at lists.nycbug.org
>>> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing listtalk at lists.nycbug.orghttp://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at lists.nycbug.org
>> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at lists.nycbug.org
> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.nycbug.org:8443/pipermail/talk/attachments/20160417/936daf4b/attachment.htm>