787

submitted 8 months ago by JPDev@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

129 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 22 points 8 months ago

Especially since python is right there.

[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 8 months ago

I mean once you get beyond bash-like scripts python is esoteric as fuck, adding oop to what is essentially a shell is a terrible idea

That said, there's plenty of languages with good syntax that is still good when you get into more complex stuff (modern C#, scala, kotlin and more)

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 11 points 8 months ago

The only thing esoteric about python is the bolted-on typing and anything behind a double underscore.

So yeah, it's there, but in front of the curtain it's practically pseudo code.

[-] Minotaur@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here pretty heavily.

Yes, Python has some goofy aspects about managing it while performing high level, in depth tasks.

This is a post and a comment chain about pseudocode being taught to people who likely just learned what a “programming language” was several weeks ago. Essentially no one taking the GCSE knows what “bash-like scripts” even means.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 8 points 8 months ago

I disagree. Python is not "esoteric" when making objects. The syntax is certainly easier than in Java.

[-] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 8 months ago

The syntax is certainly easier than Java

And VisualBasic's syntax is easier than COBOL, but this isn't a competition to make the least offensive heap of putrid garbage, so why does it matter?

Python works just fine for basic scripts, frankly it's amazing for it, but oop and functional programming is so incredibly obviously badly shoehorned in that huge swathes needs scrapping and version 4 releasing