Some languages have a very strong idiomatic style—in Python, Haskell, or Swift, the same code by two different programmers is likely to look a lot more similar than in Perl, Lisp, or C++.

There's an advantage to this—and, in particular, an advantage to you sticking to those idioms. It means that whenever you do violate the idioms, that's extra meaning in your code for free. That makes your code more concise and more readable at the same time, which is always nice.

In Python, in particular, many of PEP 8's recommendations are followed nearly ubiquitously by experienced Python developers. (Certain domains that have their own overriding recommendations—NumPy-based scientific and numeric code, Django-based web applications, internal code at many large corporations, etc.—but in those cases, it's just a matter of some different idioms to follow; the situation is otherwise the same.) So, it's worth following the same recommendations if you ever want anyone else to read your code (whether because they're submitting patches, taking over maintenance, or helping you with it on StackOverflow).

Example

One of PEP 8's recommendations is that you test for empty sequences with "if not seq:". But occasionally, you have a variable that could be either None or a list, and you want to handle empty lists differently from None. Or you have a variable that absolutely should not be a tuple, only a list, and if someone violated that, an exception would be better than doing the wrong thing. You can probably think of other good cases. In all those cases, it makes a lot more sense to write "if seq == []:".

If you've followed PEP 8's recommendations throughout your code, and then you write "if seq == []:" in one function, it will be obvious to the reader that there's something special going on, and they'll quickly be able to figure out what it is.

But if you've ignored the recommendations and used "if seq == []:" all over, or, worse, mixing "if not seq:", "if seq == []:", "if len(seq) == 0:", etc. without rhyme or reason, then "if seq == []:" has no such meaning. Either the reader has to look at every single comparison and figure out what you're really testing for, or just assume that none of them have anything worth looking at.

Of course you can work around that. You can add a comment, or an unnecessary but explicit test for None, to provide the same signal. But that's just extra noise cluttering up your code. If you only cry wolf when there's an actual wolf, crying wolf is all you ever have to do.

Posted by
Labels: python vs. tutorial
1

View comments

It's been more than a decade since Typical Programmer Greg Jorgensen taught the word about Abject-Oriented Programming.

Much of what he said still applies, but other things have changed. Languages in the Abject-Oriented space have been borrowing ideas from another paradigm entirely—and then everyone realized that languages like Python, Ruby, and JavaScript had been doing it for years and just hadn't noticed (because these languages do not require you to declare what you're doing, or even to know what you're doing). Meanwhile, new hybrid languages borrow freely from both paradigms.

This other paradigm—which is actually older, but was largely constrained to university basements until recent years—is called Functional Addiction.
5

I haven't posted anything new in a couple years (partly because I attempted to move to a different blogging platform where I could write everything in markdown instead of HTML but got frustrated—which I may attempt again), but I've had a few private comments and emails on some of the old posts, so I decided to do some followups.

A couple years ago, I wrote a blog post on greenlets, threads, and processes.
6

Looking before you leap

Python is a duck-typed language, and one where you usually trust EAFP ("Easier to Ask Forgiveness than Permission") over LBYL ("Look Before You Leap"). In Java or C#, you need "interfaces" all over the place; you can't pass something to a function unless it's an instance of a type that implements that interface; in Python, as long as your object has the methods and other attributes that the function needs, no matter what type it is, everything is good.
1

Background

Currently, CPython’s internal bytecode format stores instructions with no args as 1 byte, instructions with small args as 3 bytes, and instructions with large args as 6 bytes (actually, a 3-byte EXTENDED_ARG followed by a 3-byte real instruction). While bytecode is implementation-specific, many other implementations (PyPy, MicroPython, …) use CPython’s bytecode format, or variations on it.

Python exposes as much of this as possible to user code.
6

If you want to skip all the tl;dr and cut to the chase, jump to Concrete Proposal.

Why can’t we write list.len()? Dunder methods C++ Python Locals What raises on failure? Method objects What about set and delete? Data members Namespaces Bytecode details Lookup overrides Introspection C API Concrete proposal CPython Analysis

Why can’t we write list.len()?

Python is an OO language. To reverse a list, you call lst.reverse(); to search a list for an element, you call lst.index().
8

Many people, when they first discover the heapq module, have two questions:

Why does it define a bunch of functions instead of a container type? Why don't those functions take a key or reverse parameter, like all the other sorting-related stuff in Python? Why not a type?

At the abstract level, it's often easier to think of heaps as an algorithm rather than a data structure.
1

Currently, in CPython, if you want to process bytecode, either in C or in Python, it’s pretty complicated.

The built-in peephole optimizer has to do extra work fixing up jump targets and the line-number table, and just punts on many cases because they’re too hard to deal with. PEP 511 proposes a mechanism for registering third-party (or possibly stdlib) optimizers, and they’ll all have to do the same kind of work.
3

One common "advanced question" on places like StackOverflow and python-list is "how do I dynamically create a function/method/class/whatever"? The standard answer is: first, some caveats about why you probably don't want to do that, and then an explanation of the various ways to do it when you really do need to.

But really, creating functions, methods, classes, etc. in Python is always already dynamic.

Some cases of "I need a dynamic function" are just "Yeah? And you've already got one".
1

A few years ago, Cesare di Mauro created a project called WPython, a fork of CPython 2.6.4 that “brings many optimizations and refactorings”. The starting point of the project was replacing the bytecode with “wordcode”. However, there were a number of other changes on top of it.

I believe it’s possible that replacing the bytecode with wordcode would be useful on its own.
1

Many languages have a for-each loop. In some, like Python, it’s the only kind of for loop:

for i in range(10): print(i) In most languages, the loop variable is only in scope within the code controlled by the for loop,[1] except in languages that don’t have granular scopes at all, like Python.[2]

So, is that i a variable that gets updated each time through the loop or is it a new constant that gets defined each time through the loop?

Almost every language treats it as a reused variable.
4
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
About Me
About Me
My Photo
Loading
Dynamic Views theme. Powered by Blogger. Report Abuse.