this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
337 points (96.2% liked)

Programming

17484 readers
137 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foo@withachanceof.com 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Heh, I was about to comment how my hot take is that Python is overrated. It's... fine and I don't really have anything against it for the most part, but I greatly prefer Ruby to Python.

I'm speaking purely about the language itself here, not any libraries available for it (since someone will always point out how great Python is for data work).

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

My impression at the time was that Ruby and Python both caught on with people who were ready to be done with Perl.

And, later, that Go set out to be a replacement for Java, but ended up being a replacement for Python for people who were ready for type checking and built-in multithreading.

[–] zagaberoo@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Me too! Even just the fact that only false and nil are falsey is enough for me to prefer Ruby. Being able to use ||= as an idiomatic one-time initializer is rad. Python's OOP bothers me in a lot of ways compared to Ruby as well. And don't get me started on Ruby's blocks. . .

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The OOP in Python isn't bolted on. It was there from the first version I ever saw in the 90s.

[–] zagaberoo@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're absolutely right, not sure where I thought I had read that.

Edit: It's actually a bit less clear cut when you consider new vs old style classes, which took the Python 3 discontinuity to resolve. But still, it was wrong to imply that Python didn't originally support OOP.