>>> I think you are over-thinking this, Avi :) Is overthinking the pythonic way or did I develop such a habit from some other language?
More seriously, I find in myself that I generally do not overthink. I overtalk and sort of overwrite, so for now, I think I will drop out of this possibly non-pythonic topic and go read another book or a few hundred so when it comes up again ... -----Original Message----- From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail....@python.org> On Behalf Of Thomas Passin Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 5:04 PM To: python-list@python.org Subject: Re: Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)? On 3/4/2023 4:18 PM, avi.e.gr...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't know, Thomas. For some simple programs, there is some evolutionary > benefit by starting with what you know and gradually growing from there. He > first time you need to do something that seems to need a loop in python, > there are loops to choose from. > > But as noted in a recent discussion, things are NOT NECESSARILY the same > even with something that simple. Did your previous languages retain > something like the loop variable outside the loop? What are your new scoping > rules? Do you really want to keep using global variables, and so on. > > And, another biggie is people who just don't seem aware of what comes easily > in the new language. I have seen people from primitive environments set up > programs with multiple arrays they process the hard way instead of using > some forms of structure like a named tuple or class arranged in lists or use > a multidimensional numpy/pandas kind of data structure. > > So ignoring the word pythonic as too specific, is there a way to say that > something is the way your current language supports more naturally? > > Yes, there are sort of fingerprints in how people write. Take the python > concept of truthy and how some people will still typically add a test for > equality with True. That may not be pythonic to some but is there much harm > in being explicit so anyone reading the code better understands what it doe? > > I have to wonder what others make of my code as my style is likely to be > considered closer to "eclectic" as I came to python late and found an > expanding language with way too many ways to do anything and can choose. But > I claim that too is pythonic! I think you are over-thinking this, Avi :) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avi.e.gross=gmail....@python.org> On > Behalf Of Thomas Passin > Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 1:09 PM > To: python-list@python.org > Subject: Re: Which more Pythonic - self.__class__ or type(self)? > > On 3/4/2023 2:47 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote: >> 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"). > > What Peter didn't say is that this statement is usually used in a > disparaging sense. It tends to imply that a person can write (or is > writing) awkward or inappropriate code anywhere. > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list