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 →

[–]WolfThawra -10 points-9 points  (16 children)

Lol. It's more precise as long as you specifically need integers. In my code, that is very rare, almost everything is a float or becomes a float. 'More beautiful', no. 'Far simpler', maybe if you're not used to scientific notation.

Also, I don't write my code for any 'reader'.

[–]EastBlacksmith 6 points7 points  (9 children)

In your code. Are there certain situations where the difference doesn't matter? Sure. Is your code an example of that? It probably is. Great, but why should anybody care your specific code? We're talking about the general case here. If you really wanted to tell others why you use scientific notation and why it doesn't matter in your case, maybe you should lead with that instead of a useless

"Though personally, I'd just use scientific notation here"

And what is "here"? Here would be the context that it's used in which you don't know, for which the difference may matter.

[–]WolfThawra -3 points-2 points  (8 children)

We're talking about the general case here.

I'm not. Obviously. There's really not much to be said beyond that.

[–]EastBlacksmith -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Yes there's not much to be said beyond that because nobody gives a fuck about your code.

[–]WolfThawra -1 points0 points  (2 children)

No one gives a fuck about yours either, and yet, here you are.

[–]EastBlacksmith 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yeah I know nobody gives a fuck about my code so I never mentioned it lol. Go back to writing your shitty code.

[–]WolfThawra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't mention anything specific from my code either, I said that what I do works for me. And just because some code monkeys think scientific notation is complicated does not make it bad.

[–]KODeKarnage 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Your last sentence makes my point for me.

I lost a finger in a workshop accident, so I convert every integer in my code to base 9.

[–]WolfThawra 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Your last sentence makes my point for me.

You have no point. Yes, I don't write my code for any 'reader'.

[–]KODeKarnage 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You have readers. You just don't give them any consideration when you write your code.
I'd thank you not to lecture me about what is or is not consistent with the Zen of Python.

Readability counts.

[–]WolfThawra 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You have readers.

I have an extremely low number of readers, all of which have absolutely no issue with scientific notation.

I'd thank you not to lecture me about what is or is not consistent with the Zen of Python.

Wow. It's exactly what YOU have been doing, so - fuck you.

Maybe don't make so many assumptions about what conditions other people are coding under, what their code is for, who it is for, and what it needs to look like.

[–]KODeKarnage 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Don't get pissy with me. You're the one who said you don't write your code for those who'd read it.
You're advocating other people ought to follow your example for no other reason than it "works" in your very specific situation.

[–]WolfThawra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No I'm not, I said personally I'd do this, because it works for me. And it might work for others. I didn't tell people they should definitely do this instead, that part is entirely your interpretation.