darkf's comments

Why not just `#define never (;0;)`? It even looks like an alien emoticon.

Nah, I would love people to use Python -- just to help improve it as well (either through libraries, alternative languages or submitting changes through official channels.)

Saying I am "self aggrandising" is disingenuous and misleading at best.

Thanks!

> in this case JS absorbed the best pars of CS.

Actually my favorite part of CS is the instance var intitialization. e.g.:

    constructor(@x, @y) ->

would initialize @x and @y to the arguments. It makes writing records much nicer.

... Yeah, that's gnarly. :D That is emulating `let` using lambdas, though, and not mutable assignment. Still useful if you really want to nest them, but still immutable.

>I know he won't be able, his talk is of ignorance and provocation.

Says the person missing that it's an opinionated list, lol. It was more meant to provoke discussion, not hurt feelings (like your obviously seem to be).

>In my opinion you may just not be the best writer for some reason (Lack of education? Incompetence? Both? Who knows).

Then right back at you -- that triggers the same problems as the original statement. :D

You could very well have stated your point more constructively with that.

Yes, I'm seeing now that the tone of the post is more talked about than the actual contents. Learning!

Fair enough, I never intended it to be posted to HN or receive this much attention or I'd have taken much more care with the tone.

I retract the "ignorance" sentiment, as I do not actually know what Python developers are considering.

I do apologize for that, and thank you for your contributions. It is still by far one of my favorite languages, and I use it daily. :)

This is really cool. NamedDict is a useful thing indeed!

I never considered it harsh. If anything, it should be a testament to how nice Python is -- if I /didn't/ like it, I would have a much, much longer list of complaints!

People seem to be missing that sentiment -- I do love Python and use it almost daily. This is merely a list of thorns I run into frequently.

>Regarding the FP comments, since it lacks TCO, my take away has always been that Python can only ever become a quasi-functional language. Its hard to be more than that in its current state.

I mean, it could always encourage playing with functions more -- and importantly, providing an stdlib that encourages that.

>These questions made me want to ask you - what languages do you think are better in comparison?

That is a somewhat loaded question: my counter question would be, "In what regards?"

I cannot say a certain language is better than Python in every or most circumstances, but I can in regards to specific points/features, if you'd like to elaborate.

>Contrast a Python list with a NumPy array. To achieve speedier loops and vectorized arithmetic [0], the array gives up dynamic typing and dynamic sizing. In most applications, I would gladly give up some compute speed to gain some programming productivity.

Except numpy arrays have a much richer interface and can still store dynamic objects (dtype=object). So what's your point?

>I love duck-typing

So do I. Where does this come from? I don't believe I ever considered it a contra.

>Mobile support, you can't easily write a mobile application in Python.

Depends on your needs, but there is at least Kivy.

Nah, just people connecting that sentiment with other statements. It should be cleared up since it's causing some mass confusion.

It's funny because I preface it by saying "Remember that it's a matter of opinion" (and, well, the title alone) and people come out of the woodwork completely disregarding this, or outright misinterpreting sections of it.

I maintain that a large reader base here does not actually... read.

Same reason you're complaining in a comment instead of doing things.

Huh, that's clever! (You meant `[]` though, yes?)

Yeah, I'll keep that in mind -- some people, even programmers, apparently don't like to read carefully. :)

>You can't do that in Haskell either, and any FP purist would blanch at a statement like that.

Obviously you've never met State and/or lens then.

Yes, you can do it -- and no, I never said it should follow pure FP principles.

>lambda is fine, if you're writing in functional style you're using expressions for everything anyway.

No, I /really would/ like to be able to write:

foo.on_click(lambda: x += 1)

The language not supporting this (when most others do) is just silly.

Cool, I think you completely dodged the point. I never said it was slow because they were incompetent.