You must log in or # to comment.
Partially unrelated to the meme, but I find it almost malicious how some python keywords are named differently from the nearly universal counterpart of other languagues.
This/self, continue/pass, catch/except and they couldn’t find a different word for switch so they just didn’t implement it.
It’s as if the original designers purposefully wanted to be different for the sake of it.
PHP naming “::” a Paamayim Nekudotayim is also pretty infamous.
When I’m designing shit, I’m pretty zealous about borrowing terminology from anything even vaguely related to avoid this.
pass and continue are absolutely not equal (pass is a noop, and python has a continue keyword that does what you think), and switch is called match like in many other languages. except is weird though.
“except” is also used in Pascal (or at least the main derivatives of it), but not sure if that’s older than its use in Python or not.
Iv come to loathe the “pythonic way” because of this. They claim they wanted to make programming easier, but they sure went out of their way to not follow conventions and make it difficult to relearn. For example, for me not having lambdas makes python even more complex to work with. List operations are incredibly easy with map and filter, but they decided lambdas weren’t “pythonic” and so we have these big cumbersome things instead with wildly different syntax.
Speaking of big cumbersome things with wildly different syntax have you tried a ternary operation in python lately? Omg that thing is ugly. JavaScripts is hard to beat.
uglyTernary = True: if python_syntax == “shit” else: False prettyTernary = javascript_syntax == “pretty” ? true : false
That’s just because you’re used to it. The pythonic ternary is structured like spoken language, which makes it easier to read, especially if you nest them.
Is there an objective argument for the conventional ternary, other than „That’s how we’ve always done it!“?
The conventional ternary is structured like a normal if-else. In fact, in many languages with functional influence, they’re the same thing.
For example, you can write this in Rust:
let vegetable = if 3 > 4 { "Potato" } else { "Tomato" };
I read that
selfas a keyword also has quite a history. It was already used in Smalltalk, an OOP language from the early 80’s.Isn’t self not actually a keyword? Like you can name the first variable in a class method anything and it will behave like self.
You could use “this” instead of “self”. And if you want a lynch mob of Python programmers outside your house, make a push request with that to some commonly used package.
I think there will be a lynch mob of git users outside your house for calling PR as “push request”.
I’ve been wondering about the noise.
Edit: turns out, they weren’t there to lynch me. They just gave me a two hour lecture on proper usage of git.
TECHNICALLY, there is no such thing as a pull request in git. That’s a Github convention. It’s really a merge request
e: drat someone already out-pedantic’d me
In Python, self is not a keyword, it’s a conventional variable name. You can replace all instances of “self” with “this” and your code will work the same.
Lua might have been a better choice, since
selfis special in lua.
TBF the last two bullet points are verbose descriptions of the thing it means in C++, Java, and Python too. It’s just that in JS, “this” can also be used in other places.
But yeah, in practice, every time I write JS I want to throw my hands in the air and shout “this is bullshit”, but never know what “this” refers to… :D
Rust: Borrow handler got mad at you for asking
(I’d assume)
It’s either a reference to an object instance, or the instance itself (depending on whether you specified
&mut self,&selfor justself).
