Talk:Cheryl's birthday: Difference between revisions

:: The 'Pythonic/imperative' coding style which you like was a particular optimisation for (1.) Easily accessible Python (imperative coding creates more run-time complexity and costs more debugging time, but it has a lower entry level, requiring a grasp only of sequence branching and iteration.) and (2.) Some very private (anti 'lemon-juice', 'things that interest me') aesthetics (and one formal misapprehension) of Guido, for which he failed to establish sufficient consensus to get his own way, and which eventually contributed more to problems than to solutions, making his BDFL role unsustainable, and bringing it to an end.

 

 

:: Functional composition is, in fact, and fortunately, one of the ways in which Python is used. That is why map, filter and reduce are all there. Use of pure functions has a higher entry barrier – it requires more concepts – but it yields more reliability, reduced debugging time, and greater code reuse. It is the absolutely the right way to write good Python for in some contexts, and for some users, and there is no value whatsoever in trying to shoe-horn real Python code (officiously, and frankly, somewhat ignorantly) into the residual shackles and deficiencies which Guido sought to put in the way of composing pure functions, against the grain of the needs and better judgement of the Python community as a whole. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 15:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)