Prev: Redirecting STDOUT to a Python Variable
Next: adding new function
From: rantingrick on 23 Jun 2010 18:47
On Jun 23, 4:43 pm, "Rhodri James" <rho...(a)wildebst.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> > And how exactly does your example express itself in a more
> > "syntactically-correct" "linear-flow" than the two code snippets i
> > provided earlier, hmmm?
>
> You did rather carefully pick an example where Python's syntax flow the  
> other way round

"rather carefully picked" you say? As if built-in functions are hardly
ever used? No I think *your* statement was "rather carefully picked"
to try and discredit me. Sorry my friend that might work on the less
astute readers round here, but it has no effect on me ;-)

> and then present all the least Pythonic paraphrases of the  
> Ruby functional approach.

What? Did you just use the words "Pythonic" and "Ruby" in the same
sentence all the while keeping a strait face? Ruby's naturally linear
phrasing is one thing i like about the language (and map of course),
short of those two niceties i prefer Python.

Would you like to present another way of achieving the same code that
makes Python look better, i would love to see it. Here is an even more
interesting example of "Ruby linear-flow" verses "Python lisp-style-
nesting"...

RUBY:
["three","one","two"].map{|x| x.capitalize}.sort.join(',')

PYTHON
','.join(sorted(map(lambda x:x.title(), ["three", "one", "two"])))

I do the Python code all the time without thinking twice about it. But
to a noob i'll bet Ruby is more decipherable in these cases. It's
ironic that Python was created by a westerner and we read it from
right to left, and Ruby was created by a easterner and we read it left
to right. Go figure?

;-)
From: Stephen Hansen on 23 Jun 2010 19:35
> Would you like to present another way of achieving the same code that
> makes Python look better, i would love to see it. Here is an even more
> interesting example of "Ruby linear-flow" verses "Python lisp-style-
> nesting"...
>
> RUBY:
> ["three","one","two"].map{|x| x.capitalize}.sort.join(',')
>
> PYTHON
> ','.join(sorted(map(lambda x:x.title(), ["three", "one", "two"])))

','.join(x.title() for x in sorted(["three", "one", "two"]))

> I do the Python code all the time without thinking twice about it. But
> to a noob i'll bet Ruby is more decipherable in these cases. It's
> ironic that Python was created by a westerner and we read it from
> right to left, and Ruby was created by a easterner and we read it left
> to right. Go figure?

You read Python from right-to-left; "we" don't-- I don't.

--Stephen via iPad.
From: Gregory Ewing on 24 Jun 2010 03:53
Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:

> (that makes me think that Perl should be renamed as it
> outrageously share the same 1st character with Python).

+1. I suggest CalcifiedMolluscSecretion. The very awkwardness
of that name will doom the language to the obscurity that it
deserves relative to the One True Language Whose Name Starts
With P. :-)

--
Greg
From: Rhodri James on 24 Jun 2010 17:09
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:47:55 +0100, rantingrick <rantingrick(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jun 23, 4:43 pm, "Rhodri James" <rho...(a)wildebst.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> > And how exactly does your example express itself in a more
>> > "syntactically-correct" "linear-flow" than the two code snippets i
>> > provided earlier, hmmm?
>>
>> You did rather carefully pick an example where Python's syntax flow the
>> other way round
>
> "rather carefully picked" you say? As if built-in functions are hardly
> ever used? No I think *your* statement was "rather carefully picked"
> to try and discredit me. Sorry my friend that might work on the less
> astute readers round here, but it has no effect on me ;-)

One word: "map".

--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste Herder to the Masses
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Redirecting STDOUT to a Python Variable
Next: adding new function