this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
214 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

59756 readers
2800 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 16 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

I'm not going to disagree with this on the grounds that you could replace Python with any language and still be right for a handful of programmers using it.

Relatedly, there are plenty of people who write code in Python who know exactly what they're doing (thus defeating the quote), to the point that an amateur reading that code has literally no idea what's going on. Abstractions upon abstractions. Horrors upon horrors. Likewise this can be done in any language. Try taking apart one of the standard Perl modules (that's written in Perl anyway), for example.

What does concern me is that the only source I can find for this quote is your comment. I can find Conal Elliot and even a suggestion that they have written code in Python (making the quote a self-burn, perhaps), but not the quote itself.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Conal’s point is that no, in fact there are almost zero programmers that fully understand even the simplest Python code since it is a dynamically typed language.

Here’s where I heard it.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/type-theory-forall/id1546295833?i=1000654070339

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Condescending tone was not intended, but on rereading I can see how I've come across that way. Sorry about that.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 18 points 2 weeks ago

It’s fine. I’m sure I contributed somewhat o the misreading of the tone too. Namaste, my friend.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)