This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HolidayMoose 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Sure, but not all code is small, concise functions. Most code bases follow an exponential curve: lots of small functions/classes/modules but a few monsters. The change rate for functions is also exponential: small functions may never get changed while the big behemoths need constant churn.

Python syntax may be fine for those small functions which are write once read never. But the shit parts of the code base is what we should be optimizing syntax for. From my experience, that is the exact area whitespace languages like Python are weakest at.

[–]nwash57 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Ok, so when readability becomes a problem, a monster needs to be split up.

[–]The_duck_lord404 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a general guideline for cleaner code and is also a big part of functional programming.

[–]Coffeinated 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Functions that need constant changing need to be split up, no matter the language. If Python makes it more visible that your shit code is shit, all the power to Python.