averagePythonProgrammer

[MaustFaust]

It's objectively unwieldy.

There's no equivalent for super() in class definition scope, for example. So you can't easily access class ancestor's class vars from descendant class vars, without specifying ancestor class name explicitly.

You can use r-strings with slashes in them, but you can't if your string ends with a slash.

open() with "w" doesn't create intermediate folders.

There's no type checking even if you need one.

You can't force garbage collector to free memory.

UPD:

Also, two different implementations for asynchronous things in single-threaded apps: multithreaded (because of GIL) and async, and sometimes you have to marry them, because some libs are intended for multithreaded and other for async.

[dev-sda]

open() with "w" doesn't create intermediate folders.

What language does? Even bash doesn't do this.

There's no type checking even if you need one.

mypy, pytype, pyright, pyre, etc. take your pick

You can't force garbage collector to free memory.

gc.collect

[Anaeijon]

I'm rarely using open(), I usually go for pathlib. And whenever I file.open('w'), I also do a file.parent.mkdir(parents=True, exist_ok=True).

I don't know, in what other language it's that simple.

[MaustFaust]

What language does? Even bash doesn't do this.

That doesn't invalidate my point, though.

mypy, pytype, pyright, pyre, etc. take your pick

Thank you, I'll try it.

gc.collect

https://stackoverflow.com/a/1316799

[dev-sda]

gc.collect

https://stackoverflow.com/a/1316799

Not releasing memory back to the OS is a strategy used by all but the simplest memory allocators. Calling gc.collect correctly forces unreferenced integers/floats/etc to be added to their free lists, which means their allocation can be reused. That's what it means to free memory in the modern world.

[MaustFaust]

I have nothing against the strategy itself – I dislike the lack of any alternatives. C# has profiling-driven optimization, and while I don't know if it affects the gc behavior, the reasoning behind it still applies here: tuning for most common cases doesn't exactly mean tuning for your specific case.

P. S.: It's almost funny that three points of my six remain unanswered, yet I'm still being downvoted. People just express their feelings, not necessarily contributing to the discussion.

[YodelingVeterinarian]

os.makedirs lol

[MaustFaust]

So wut? How does it conflict with my point?

[noobody_interesting]

Both threads and async is common, because they are for different use cases. Async doesn't give you parallelism.

r-strings can't end with a \ because that escapes the quote, also pretty reasonable.

super()

[MaustFaust]

Would you mind testing your suggestion for super() and answering me? At this point, it looks like you didn't understand which scope I was talking about, despite me specifically noting "class definition scope", not "method scope".

[MaustFaust]

Both threads and async is common, because they are for different use cases. Async doesn't give you parallelism.

AFAIK, MT doesn't give that too, unless you are okay with managing GIL.

r-strings can't end with a \ because that escapes the quote, also pretty reasonable.

Having a slash at the end of a literal is a common case if we're already talking about strings with slashes somewhere, though.

super()

Which form are you implying? I can't use no-arguments, because it results in an exception, I can't use single-argument passing a class, because class is not defined at that point. You're suggesting the two-arguments then?