User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions

Line 320:

::: I don't have an issue with functional programming, (I use that style of Python and other languages myself); You raise this to deflect the reader from the issue that you want to promote a distinctive, non-idiomatic style of coding as idiomatic. You use a poor substitute for function docstrings and replace idiomatic type hints with your type comments, without notice/warning.

::: If you prefer a different style of coding please use it, but please also stop this childish campaign of hiding it. Write it up! Shout it out! Are you not proud of the claimed superiority of your changes? Don't be sly. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

<br><br>So you chose not to disagree with my assesment that your style of coding was rejected by the community.<br>

You don't disagree with my points showing two fundamental ways in which your style ignores guidelines.<br>

Line 341:

Line 340:

* Don't remove content aimed at doing the above.

--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 01:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

:: Donald this is all slightly strange and angry fantasy ...

:: "''On not persuading the Python community to adopt such a style you intend to [XYZ]''"

::: What makes you feel that I have ever tried to persuade 'the Python community' to a adopt a coding style ?

::: What is this 'rejection' that you are talking of ? I am not aware that anyone (apart from you, it seems) is or ever has been remotely interested by whatever aspect of my linter-compliant functionally-composed code so frantically exercises you. The comments ? It seems an odd kind of windmill to charge at .... [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 07:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

:::

::: And then, it grows even more bizarre ... "''you intend to flood RC with your coding examples and need to have them masquerade as idiomatic Python.''"

::: What ?

::: I am writing functional code in Python, not particularly (beyond compliance with the PEP8 linters) within the 'Pythonic' subset (its well known that that idiom is better optimised for procedural than for functional code - even reduce is deprecated)

::: Have I '''ever''' used the term 'Pythonic' to label or describe my code ? It's not a term I even think about – certainly not a totem that I wish to lay claim or waste to. The PEP8 linters are very helpful - but beyond that I am frankly more interested in whether or not code works, and how efficiently I can write and maintain it.

::: 'Pythonic' is simply not (and has never been) a word that I use, lay claim to, wish or have ever wished to influence or even, frankly, think about very much. I prefer to leave that to the (excellent) tooling.

::: I '''am''' interested composing pure functions wherever possible, simply because it works for me, and seems to lower the bug-count and time spent.

::: I am not alone in finding this a good and theoretically well-founded approach, but I have no interest in persuading anyone who doesn't like it, or feels somehow threatened by it ... [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 07:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

::: What on earth are you really talking about ?

::: Do you genuinely expect us to take all this seriously ?

::: Did you really expect us to take it seriously when you decided that my code was automatically generated by a machine ?

::: What '''is''' this angry, destructive, and fantastical obsession ? Do you have someone with whom you could talk about it ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 07:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

::: Good luck and good health to you. Enjoy your coding. Please leave mine alone. It is Python, it's not over-strictly Pythonic, though it is linter-compliant. It have never labelled it as 'Pythonic'. It does use map and reduce. So what ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 07:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)