Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)?

[avi.e.gross at gmail.com]

Peter,

Of course each language has commonly used idioms as C with pointer
arithmetic and code like *p++=*q++ but my point is that although I live near
a  seaway and from where C originated, I am not aware of words like "c-way"
or "scenic" as compared to the way people keep saying "pythonic".

Yes, languages develop idioms and frankly, many are replaced with time. And,
yes, I am sure I can write FORTRAN style  in any language as I used to teach
it, but WATFOR?

If the question is to show a dozen solutions for a problem written in VALID
python and ask a panel of seasoned python programmers which they would
prefer, then sometimes there is a more pythonic solution by that definition.
Give the same test to newbies who each came from a different language
background and are just getting started, and I am not sure I care how they
vote!

I suggest that given a dozen such choices, several may be reasonable choices
and in some cases, I suggest the non-pythonic choice is the right one such
as when you expect someone to port your code to other languages and you need
to keep it simple.

I am simply saying that for ME, some questions are not as simple as others.
I am more interested in whether others can read and understand my code, and
it runs without problems, and maybe even is slightly efficient, than whether
someone deems it pythonic.


-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail.com at python.org> On
Behalf Of Peter J. Holzer
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 2:48 AM
To: python-list at python.org
Subject: Re: Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)?

On 2023-03-03 13:51:11 -0500, avi.e.gross at gmail.com wrote:
> I do not buy into any concept about something being pythonic or not.
> 
> Python has grown too vast and innovated quite a  bit, but also borrowed
from
> others and vice versa.
> 
> There generally is no universally pythonic way nor should there be. Is
there
> a C way

Oh, yes. Definitely.

> and then a C++ way and an R way or JavaScript

JavaScript has a quite distinctive style. C++ is a big language (maybe
too big for a single person to grok completely) so there might be
several "dialects". I haven't seen enough R code to form an opinion.

> or does only python a language with a philosophy of what is the
> pythonic way?

No. Even before Python existed there was the adage "a real programmer
can write FORTRAN in any language", indicating that idiomatic usage of a
language is not governed by syntax and library alone, but there is a
cultural element: People writing code in a specific language also read
code by other people in that language, so they start imitating each
other, just like speakers of natural languages imitate each other.
Someone coming from another language will often write code which is
correct but un-idiomatic, and you can often guess which language they
come from (they are "writing FORTRAN in Python"). Also quite similar to
natural languages where you can guess the native language of an L2
speaker by their accent and phrasing.

        hp

-- 
   _  | Peter J. Holzer    | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) |                    |
| |   | hjp at hjp.at         |    -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/   | http://www.hjp.at/ |       challenge!"