←back to thread

620 points tambourine_man | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.224s | source
Show context
nu11ptr ◴[] No.43750542[source]
Personally, this feels like a feature that is too focused on one problem to be a general feature. Python is getting huge. When people ask me if Python is easy and simple to learn I have to say "the basics, yes, but to to learn the whole language... not so much".

I feel like in this sense Go really is interesting by rejecting almost every single feature. Honestly not sure generics were worth it as they add a lot of complexity, and while they are nice, I don't need them very much. The general idea to keep the language at its original focus is the right idea IMO. C++ would be the most extreme case where the language itself barely resembles what it started out as.

replies(4): >>43750633 #>>43750807 #>>43751386 #>>43754916 #
murkt ◴[] No.43750633[source]
This is a pretty simple and useful feature. I wouldn’t say that it bloats the language too much. Descriptors and metaclasses are much more complicated and have a lot more implications and have been in the language for a veeeeery long time. Is it decades already?
replies(3): >>43750700 #>>43752735 #>>43766039 #
pansa2 ◴[] No.43750700[source]
Yeah, Python hasn’t been a simple language for a long time, if ever. That’s probably the biggest misconception about the language - that its friendly syntax implies simple semantics. It’s not true at all.
replies(1): >>43752506 #
1. tetha ◴[] No.43752506[source]
I would say python in it's entirety is one of, if not the deepest and potentially most complex language I know. C++ is the other contender. The things you could do with metaclasses, multiple inheritance and operator overloading are quite staggering.

I'm just glad you don't have to think or even use this as a normal user of the language, most of the time or at all.