Talk:Evaluate binomial coefficients: Difference between revisions
Talk:Evaluate binomial coefficients (view source)
Revision as of 15:31, 24 February 2019
, 5 years ago→Please desist from deleting Functional Python examples
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 75:
:: I read your diatribe, and have noted my issues several times, above.<br> Your summary is misleading, (but our actions on the page seem to be converging). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 09:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
::: We disagree, and that's fine - I have never deleted or interfered with your code, and I'm sure we can converge on an agreement that you don't continue to delete or interfere with mine, which is optimised for a different set of goals, and constructed and commented in a different way.
::: It must be difficult, and perhaps unexpected, to have Nigel and I reflecting back to you that your behaviour constitutes harassment and bullying, and I'm sure you would wish to avoid any repetitions.
::: A first step to helping yourself avoid this kind of behaviour might simply be to allow yourself the luxury of having an opinion, rather than depersonalising your pronouncements and seeking refuge behind imagined tablets of stone.
::: There is no need to replace a braver and more honest statement like 'I disagree with your summary' with a detached and unsupported olympian claim like 'your summary is misleading'.
::: Similarly, allow yourself to notice that your detached and impersonal expression 'hence the deletions' really means "so '''I''' deleted '''your''' work" – a real interaction between two real people.
::: If you can move away from depersonalising yourself, you will be in less danger of depersonalising others, and slipping back into unwitting bullying and harassment.
::: Give yourself a break. Allow yourself to have an opinion. There's no need to represent it as dissociated impersonal fact,
::: and there's no need to feel frightened or confused or angry about others having different opinions.
::: Nature is large and each human mind is a tiny candle. None of us really understands very much at all, and that's fine. As long as we cooperate, we can build cities, and sometimes even find our way to happy times and beautiful places.
::: In the meanwhile I'll compose code from pure functions, and annotate in a way that facilitates insight and Rosetta comparison, and you can write the kind of code that you prefer, and that has the qualities which you prefer to pursue.
::: Others can benefit from both, and judge for themselves what to emulate or avoid. That's their choice – not ours.
::: Happy coding and good luck ! [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 15:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
==A Foolish Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Little Minds==
Line 138 ⟶ 153:
: For the human reader whose HM comments have been deleted, the parseable type hints to the '''mypy''' checker have a '''poorer signal to noise ratio'''. Cognitively redundant 'Callable' names are multiply inserted where HM needs none, each also bringing 4 additional square brackets. In some instances type names require lower case, in others upper case. The simply polymorphic HM `a` (any type) is replaced by the more verbose '''Any''' (or even '''typing.Any''').
:: For example, given an '''enumFromTo''' function which
:: (e.g. Char or Bool enumerations '''['a' .. 'z']''', '''[False .. True]'''
:: as well as Int and Float enumerations '''[1.. 10]''', '''[1.5 .. 10.5]'''),
:: The HM comment:
:::'''enumFromTo :: Enum a => a -> a -> [a]'''
:: (''A list of values derived from a start value and and end value of the same type'',
:: ''as long as that type is enumerable'')
:: is more informative to the reader, and less verbose, than the mypy type hint:
::: '''def enumFromTo(m: Any) -> Callable[[Any], List[Any]]:'''
:: Which
: Additionally, the scope for Rosetta comparison is diminished – the links between implementations of standard abstractions across different languages are weakened and made less directly visible and comparable. (There are many Haskell, JavaScript, Python and ApplesSript examples on RC which use the same function name, and the same Hindley Milner type comments, for a given mathematically founded abstraction - we can learn a lot about a language, on a fine scale, by comparing these implementations).
: Increased bug counts for no actual checking by Python3 itself seems an unattractive deal to me. The 'nativist' argument for them (a purer or more Etonian Python accent – why adopt the broadly used Hindley Milner comments when our native Python allows actual type hints ?) makes no distinction between benefits to the '''reader'''
: It seems a pity, however, to impose something less readable on the reader, when the Python3 compiler:
Line 163 ⟶ 180:
: My personal verdict is that in languages like Idris, Agda, Haskell, where the compiler does use the type signatures, they are excellent and indispensable, but that in Python3, which doesn't yet use them, they are (at the scale of Rosetta Code examples) a nice idea, but no more in practice than a source of additional bugs, and, if used in place of type comments, just make things less clear and more difficult for the reader.
: Even Donald was clearly confused by them, assigning wrong types, and
: On the scale of much larger projects, and as a complement to comments, rather than a substitute for them, the use of the '''mypy''' and the type hints which it can read, will doubtless begin to pay off the cost of the expanded bug surface which it initially introduces.
: For the small scale of Rosetta Code examples however - nice idea, but perhaps doesn't yet survive experiment, or actually benefit RC readers ? Maybe when Python4 comes ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
:: Donald [[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]]. Do feel free to introduce type hints into your own code - but please desist from deleting my type comments and replacing them with these hints. They damage the legibility of the code, demonstrably
:: Not easy to think of a better example of the 'foolish consistency' against which PEP8 prominently warns on its opening page. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 09:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
| |||