Anonymous user
User talk:Hout: Difference between revisions
→None Pythonic code: fixed formatting
(→None Pythonic code: comment) |
(→None Pythonic code: fixed formatting) |
||
Line 301:
::: 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. [[User:Dick de Bill|Dick de Bill]] ([[User talk:Dick de Bill|talk]]) 12:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
::: 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)
| |||