Talk:Fusc sequence: Difference between revisions
→Deletion vs variation: comparison and research – more helpful than shouting and fervour :-)
(→Deletion vs variation: no no no) |
(→Deletion vs variation: comparison and research – more helpful than shouting and fervour :-)) |
||
Line 16:
: For the supposed high virtues you listed, I see none in the code entry. Reliability? It's not proven, and it is not easy to prove by wading through 11 <code>def</code> blocks to ascertain its logic. Code refactoring and reuse? It's moot because no sane project would want to reuse this code when it takes less time to write something simpler from scratch. Code culture vary, sure, that's why there is a Haskell section up there somewhere, where you can find beautifully readable code, because you know, it is actually Haskell.
: If people come to read something in the Python section and sees this behemoth, it's a sign that we have failed miserably at being helpful. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] ([[User talk:Ledrug|talk]]) 05:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
:: We disagree, and that's very helpful and productive – it generates additional Rosetta versions, illustrating different approaches, and in, this case even generates an additional comparison-pair (unknowingly and briefly broken yesterday) between the JavaScript and one of the Python versions.
:: Another constructive use of disagreement is stimulus to research and statistical analysis.
:: On the question of reliability, code defects and the attendant waste of human time (rather than machine time), you may find it interesting to read the statistical analysis in ''A Large Scale Study of Programming Languages and Code Quality in Github'' (UC Davis, Ray et al.2014) which finds Python to be one of a small number of languages which are unusually defect-prone.
:: The authors of that paper conclude that the data '''indicates functional languages are better than procedural languages; it suggests that strong typing is better than weak typing; that static typing is better than dynamic;'''.
:: My view (perhaps you will disagree) is that this sheds useful light on why it proves empirically rewarding (lower defect rates, higher rates of code reuse, less profligate use – and unscheduled interruption – of human time) to adopt functional methods of composition (particularly including avoidance, wherever possible, of mutable variables) in Python projects. Others have clearly had the same experience – we have only to look at the significant number of books and articles on functional programming in Python.
:: That article is also evidence for the helpfulness, particularly in the case of Python, of illustrating, next to procedural examples, how one might alternatively adopt functional methods of composition, including the relegation of any mutable variables to the internals of well-tested primitives. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 10:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
| |||