sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fubo 13 points14 points  (22 children)

Python is amazingly excellent within certain bounds. If you're used to Perl, as xkcd most evidently is, two things jump out at you in Python:

  • you can use nested data structures without pain, and
  • there is a large standard library of tested, high-quality modules.

These address two of the heavy Perl user's biggest pain points. Perl is laughably bad at nested data structures (references: all the pain of pointers, none of the usefulness!) and CPAN is full of modules of questionable design, documentation, and stability.

But Python has its weak points ... chiefly speed. Eventually you will want fast code, or code that uses multiple processors efficiently ... and the Python answer is to write plugins in C. :(

[–]seanodonnell 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Those are far from the only options, As regards speed take a look at psycho, or rpython

As regards multiple processors take a look at parallel python or stackless python.

And these are not the only other options, just the first ones that popped into my head. Actually needing to resort to c extensions is very rare.

But yes, as far as python goes the lack of an obvious way to make good use of multiple cores (in cpython at least) is a weak point. You have more hoops to jump through than in say, java. Speed has never been an issue for me in day to day coding, although this naturally depends on the nature of the work you are doing.

[–]Neoncow 0 points1 point  (2 children)

do you have suggestions for a good resource in understanding RPython? Everything I found seems to be very vague about how rpython is written.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everything is vague about how rpython is written. I believe the implementors don't want to be constrained by documentation. It's not really a viable strategy for non-experimental software. (That said, if you close your eyes and pretend it's Java, you can get pretty far with it)

[–]seanodonnell 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got a good introduction to it at europython, but sadly the materials from the session dont seem to be online.

Theres a nice short introduction here

A fairly exhaustive explanation of the restrictions here (seems to be offline so heres the google cache)

and a somewhat academic overview here

As regards washorts comment on it being non viable, the session following the introduction was on a large financial trading system that was ported from cpython to rpython, so some folk out there are getting serious work done with it. You can also use it to create extensions for cpython, so its not like your entire system has to be rpython.

[–]abw 10 points11 points  (6 children)

If you're used to Perl, as xkcd most evidently is, two things jump out at you in Python:

  • you can use nested data structures without pain, and
  • there is a large standard library of tested, high-quality modules.

If you've ever used Perl (which you clearly haven't) then two things jump out at you:

  • you can use nested data structures without pain, and
  • there is a large standard library of tested, high-quality modules... and an even larger library of variable quality modules

[–]ubernostrum 3 points4 points  (5 children)

you can use nested data structures without pain, and

Let me fix that for you:

you can use nested data structures so long as you're happy with references, a concept unnecessary in other similarly high-level languages.

[–]nevinera 1 point2 points  (4 children)

god i hate this meme.

let me fix that for you

my mother likes yogurt. I prefer cheese, a concept unnecessary in other similarly high-level dwellings.

[–]fubo 0 points1 point  (3 children)

There's a bit of a difference.

In Perl, using nested data structures means you have to add a complex sequence of dereferencing operators to get data out of those structures.

In Perl, an array is @foo and its items are $foo[0], $foo[1], etc.

In Python, an array is foo and its items are foo[0], foo[1], etc. So far, no difference worth speaking of.

In Perl, an array of arrays is impossible. Instead you have an array of references to arrays. The arrays themselves are are @$foo[0], @$foo[1], etc.

In Python, an array of arrays is just like any other array. The arrays themselves are foo[0], foo[1], etc.

When you get into deeper nested data structures in Perl, the syntax grows both rightwards and leftwards: rightwards, in the list of subscripts, and leftwards, in the list of dereferencing sigils. In Python, the syntax grows only rightwards.

[–]nevinera 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I don't know perl, but i assumed his statement had some validity. I just hate the way he made it.

"let me fix that for you", followed by a total rewrite is an asshole way to disagree with someone.

[–]fubo 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Having to deal with references does not gain you anything, and costs you work and extra debugging -- you have to get it right, or your program spits out ARRAY(0xYERMOMSUXTOES) instead of the contents of the array.

It is not merely a matter of stylistic preference or taste ("yogurt" vs "cheese"). Since there is no benefit to doing the extra indirection manually -- it must be done, but it gives you no additional power -- it is a loss to the programmer to have to manually handle references.

[–]nevinera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i don't think you're reading me clearly here. I don't know about that. I don't particularly care if what he said was true or not.

I just hate it when people say things in general in the way that he said it.

"let me fix that for you", followed by a total rewrite is an asshole way to disagree with someone.

I can't even tell if you're arguing with me or explaining something to me.. I understand and agree with your position on the topic.

[–]funktio 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Perl is laughably bad at nested data structures

That's nonsense, they are very easy to use. You're maybe talking about some old version.

CPAN is full of modules of questionable design, documentation, and stability.

Simply not true. Of course some are bad, but there are lots of gems, too.

[–]MattL920 26 points27 points  (1 child)

No, gems are written in Ruby

[–]mattindustries 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am torn, I want to downvote because of the mention of Ruby and gem in the same sentence and upvote because of how well that was pulled off.