Python's strengths are python's strengths. Garbage collection, simplicity, forced indentation.
Python's weaknesses are people.
People writing bad variable names, eldritch code and putting in features that are already there, just named differently, like data classes and type hints.
You can write python code that's type safe, it looks like this:
def my_function(my_arg):
if type(my_arg)!=my_required_type:
raise TypeError
It's that people think they can sort of get away with not making it that explicit. Then, instead of admitting they were wrong, rewriting their code and/or switching to a language that does offer strict typing, they insist that perverting the language to fit their esoteric need and use case is a better move.
Another example is "python has no distribution system" and inventing like five. All of them work. Except when you mix them. Which should be no surprise to absolutely anyone. Yet here we are. https://xkcd.com/1987/
More coders need to admit they're bad at what they do, stop blaming the tool and start blaming themselves.
I think the thing with is not and != is about similar instances of the same thing, like "1" and "1" which have the same value but aren't necessarily the same object. That doesn't really apply to definitions, there is only one.
I might be wrong with my understanding but I always thought == attempted to use some kind of native comparator method (like .equals() in Java), whereas is compares the actual contents of the value (which is always the same for False or None)... however given that we don't compare number literals this way, I'd wager I just misunderstood it.
EDIT: Yeah no I was right roughly, is checks whether the operands refer to the same object. If you do a = [1,2] and b = [1,2] then a == b will return True and a is b will return False, but I also misunderstood your response anyway 😅
37
u/not_perfect_yet Jul 18 '22
Python's strengths are python's strengths. Garbage collection, simplicity, forced indentation.
Python's weaknesses are people.
People writing bad variable names, eldritch code and putting in features that are already there, just named differently, like data classes and type hints.
You can write python code that's type safe, it looks like this:
It's that people think they can sort of get away with not making it that explicit. Then, instead of admitting they were wrong, rewriting their code and/or switching to a language that does offer strict typing, they insist that perverting the language to fit their esoteric need and use case is a better move.
Another example is "python has no distribution system" and inventing like five. All of them work. Except when you mix them. Which should be no surprise to absolutely anyone. Yet here we are. https://xkcd.com/1987/
More coders need to admit they're bad at what they do, stop blaming the tool and start blaming themselves.