Does Python 'enable' poke and hope programming?

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:57 PM, CM <cmpython at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems that if I can make a change to the code and then immediately test it by running the Python interpreter and finding out, in a few seconds, if it worked, I am going to be *much* more likely to use this trial-and-error approach than if I had to use a compiled language, since compiling takes so long.  E.g. "Oh, that doesn't work?  Maybe if I add this...no.  OK, what about if I increment that?  No...OK, wait, maybe this...AH!  That worked."  (obviously it is not quite that uninformed all the time).


I would say that, often, that's a fine way to do things. With two very
similar languages I work with (Python and Pike), there's a slight
difference in the interpretation of a range subscript:

Pike v7.8 release 700 running Hilfe v3.5 (Incremental Pike Frontend)
> "Hello, world!"[..5];
(1) Result: "Hello,"
> "Hello, world!"[5..];
(2) Result: ", world!"

Python 3.3.0 (v3.3.0:bd8afb90ebf2, Sep 29 2012, 10:55:48) [MSC v.1600
32 bit (Intel)] on win32
>>> "Hello, world!"[:5]
'Hello'
>>> "Hello, world!"[5:]
', world!'

Python counts the boundaries between characters, Pike counts the
characters themselves. So using the same number on different sides of
the colon yields the exact same string in Python, but in Pike, both
strings contain the indexed character. Both ways make sense, and the
easiest way to make sure I haven't mucked something up - in either
language - is to try it.

ChrisA