• Scrubbles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    03 months ago

    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

      • @limdaepl@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        03 months ago

        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!“?

        • Ephera
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13 months ago

          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" };