Anonymous user
User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions
→None Pythonic code: comment
(→'Non Pythonic' code: (a preoccupation with dress code at the expense of capacity would hardly be a sign of good health ...)) |
(→None Pythonic code: comment) |
||
Line 299:
That way people may add both styles of functional Python examples to the site, and read examples without confusion as to what is idiomatic.
::: There are various idioms. The 'Pythonic' subset of Python was never intended for functional programming, and is only partially applicable to it. PEP 8 warns strongly against confusing 'foolish consistency' with code quality.
:::: That is exactly what you should finally realize. You are foolishly consistent in writing "functional Python" which is detrimental to the quality of your code. Had you applied functional style in Python where it is really suited, no one would complain. But the mere fact that you add comments in ''another programming language (!!)'' to your Python code shows your inability to discern what is and what is not suitable. If you want to write Haskell, stay away from Python and write Haskell. Your "creations" are a disgrace to both languages.
The former is no substitute for (or guide to) the latter [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
:::: Your style is cross-language and you refuse to follow idioms that apply. Fine, but don't try and pass such off as idiomatic Python, in fact state what style it adheres to because you put your style above the Pythonic. Stop the subterfuge.--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 04:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
| |||