No offence
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
659 points (92.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
32571 readers
482 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is python really any better?
yes
loosely typed: python is the same
bad package manager: python is infinitely worse
false
don't think so but ehy...
pip is the bane of my existence
Also python IS loosely typed. take a str and you can reassign it to an int or whatever
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Python is strongly typed. What is is is dynamically typed, also known as "duck typing".
Strong typing doesn't have a widely agreed upon definition. Duck typing is not equivalent to dynamic typing.
Yep last time I tried python, it's type checker was so, so much worse than typescript.
Everyone I've met saying python is better turned out not have used modern JavaScript/typescript.
I'm sure that's the case, but the meme is not making fun of typescript, its making fun of his dad: JavaScript, maybe for not comparing to his son: typescript
Objects have strong, definite types that never change. Variables do not have types and can store any Object.
You're right about python being the same. Python doesn't have a mature alternative to Typescript that launches it into having best-in-class type handling.
There's so much that my C# devs can't do with its horrible type system that Typescript "just does better". At compile-time at least.
I used to work on a hybrid typescript/python product (some services js, some TS, some python), and the TS stuff was just faster-running, easier to iterate, and better. And story-point allocations consistently showed that for an excess of 20 devs working on those codebases.
As for pip/easy_install vs npm/yarn/pnpm... I'm curious what you think pip does well that yarn/npm doesn't? I'll say in my work experience there's more/better enterprise private repository/cache support for node modules than for python modules. Using npm security databases alongside "known good versioning" allows a team of even 100 developers to safely add libraries to projects with no fear of falling out of corporate compliance regulations. I've never seen that implemented with pip
Depending on the regulations, python virtual envs could make it possible too.
How so? The companies I worked for were using venv's but nothing that could help with standards.
Using a private npm repo, I can actually do aninstall of a library I want to use and it'll refuse to install if that library isn't already approved for use by the organization, and if it is/does, it will install only the approved version. Further, I still don't have any of the libraries installed I don't want (even secure-seeming unnecessary code is a potential risk and unnecessary). The last 2 places I worked that used python used venv's, but the pip requirements.txt file was still fairly hard to keep regulated.
From approved environments:
pip freeze > requirements.txt?So let's say I want to add a library not currently being used in this project, but that might have been approved for another project in another repo? How does
pip freezesolve that problem? Do python users endorse a "every single python app in the entire org should use the same requirements.txt" mindset? Or what am I missing?Are you sure your knowledge of Python's package management isn't out of date? easy_install has been deprecated for years. There are a few mechanisms that the Python community now has for dependency management and installation. My favorite solution is Poetry, which like npm maintains a separate dependency (pyproject.toml) and lock (poetry.lock) file.
I didn't think anyone was using easy_install anymore, but I still see it in docs for stuff.
Poetry looks interesting, but does it support private-only dependencies, where the system will reject a library or version if it has not been previously approved and cached?
I think this is what you're looking for, where you can configure both the resolution order and whether to just pull from a private repository.
Ah, yeah. Pretty awesome. Looks like they added that in 2019. I wonder why I've not seen that behavior used much at all.
Is there also good repo-mirror functionality to keep it easy to curate the private source?
I'm not sure why it's not done as much. But yes, there's tooling to maintain a mirror. I'm not sure about quality, since I haven't done it myself.
Python is as inefficient as js is ugly
Well done.
That is like a colleague farewell card that says, “Four years already? It seems like only six months with all that we have accomplished.”
Afaik JavaScript only runs in a browser. If you want to make a desktop app your only option is something like electron.
For example, you can't make the equivalent of a bash script with JS, but it's trivial with python. I don't think you can do system calls at all with JS.
There are non-browser JavaScript implementations, the most well-known of which is node.js