learning python ...

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 1:00 PM hw <hw at adminart.net> wrote:
>
> On 5/24/21 3:54 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > You keep using that word "unfinished". I do not think it means what
> > you think it does.
>
> What do you think I think it means?

I think it means that the language is half way through development,
doesn't have enough features to be usable, isn't reliable enough for
production, and might at some point in the future become ready to use.

None of which is even slightly supported by evidence.

> > Python has keywords. C has keywords. In Python, "None" is a keyword,
> > so you can't assign to it; in C, "int" is a keyword, so you can't
> > assign to it. There is no fundamental difference here, and the two
> > languages even have roughly the same number of keywords (35 in current
> > versions of Python; about 40 or 50 in C, depending on the exact
> > specification you're targeting). The only difference is that, in
> > Python, type names aren't keywords. You're getting caught up on a
> > trivial difference that has happened to break one particular test that
> > you did, and that's all.
>
> Then what is 'float' in the case of isinstance() as the second
> parameter, and why can't python figure out what 'float' refers to in
> this case?  Perhaps type names should be keywords to avoid confusion.

It's a name. In Python, any name reference is just a name reference.
There's no magic about the language "knowing" that the isinstance()
function should take a keyword, especially since there's no keywords
for these things.

> >> Maybe you can show how this is a likeable feature.  I already understood
> >> that you can somehow re-define functions in python and I can see how
> >> that can be useful.  You can do things like that in elisp as well.  But
> >> easily messing up built-in variable types like that is something else.
> >> Why would I want that in a programming language, and why would I want to
> >> use one that allows it?
> >
> > Because all you did was mess with the *name* of the type. It's not
> > breaking the type system at all.
>
> And how is it a likeable feature?

You can complain about whether it's likeable or not, but all you're
doing is demonstrating the Blub Paradox.

> > The C language never says that Python is "unfinished". I'm not making
> > assumptions, I'm reading your posts.
>
> I never said it is unfinished, I said it /seems/ unfinished.  In any
> case, there is nothing insulting about it.  Python is still being worked
> on (which is probably a good thing), and the switch from version 2 to
> version 3 has broken a lot of software, which doesn't help in making it
> appear as finished or mature.

It's been around for thirty years. Quit fudding. You're getting very
close to my killfile.

Python 3 has been around since 2009. Are you really telling me that
Python looks unfinished because of a breaking change more than a
decade ago? The Go language didn't even *exist* before Python 3 - does
that mean that Go is also unfinished?

> Just look at what the compiler says when you try to compile these
> examples.  In the first example, you can't defeat a built-in data type
> by assigning something to it, and in the second one, you declare
> something as an instance of a build-in data type and then try to use it
> as a function.  That is so because the language is designed as it is.

Yes, because C uses keywords for types. That's the only difference
you're seeing here. You keep getting caught up on this one thing, one
phenomenon that comes about because of YOUR expectations that Python
and C should behave the same way. If you weren't doing isinstance
checks, you wouldn't even have noticed this! It is *NOT* a fundamental
difference.

Also, you keep arguing against the language, instead of just using it
the way it is. It really sounds to me like you'd do better to just
give up on Python and go use some language that fits your brain
better. If you won't learn how a language works, it's not going to
work well for you.

ChrisA