Programming Forums > Script Programming > Python

Dietrich · Apr 6th, 2006, 11:36 AM

My main attraction to Python is readability of code. I always thought that this was rather pythonic. Any other thoughts or disagreements?

Master · Apr 6th, 2006, 11:55 AM

I don't really find it readable as you think. I do understand what the code does. But the formatting is not all that great. it is better to use braclet or begin and end like ruby does. Note i am not try to say that python is not good. But the way things are written in it makes it seems as if there is there a beginning but no end such

(Toggle Plain Text)

def blah(str):
  print(str)
  while(true):
    print(str)
    if(str == Nothing):
        break
def dosomething():
   print("something")

I don't really see that as been readable

Dietrich · Apr 6th, 2006, 1:40 PM

I sort of like Ruby's end, but on the other hand it is not always very easy to figure out where the end begins.

At least in Python I know that the colon starts the appropriate block indentation. However, mixed tab and space indentations, easy to do, can thoroughly ruin any Python code!

I like Ruby and Python, they both have their strengths. Compared to C++ or Java, I feel like a kid in the candy store!

So what do you call pythonic in Ruby? Rubiconic?

Master · Apr 6th, 2006, 1:52 PM

Rubyist

King · Apr 6th, 2006, 3:21 PM

I think C++ is way more readable, but then again I program it alsmot everyday.

Jessehk · Apr 6th, 2006, 4:36 PM

I think some of the complicated list comprehensions are unreadable unless you've written them yourself.

Specifically the stuff I've seen Sane write...

Getting back on topic, this is my impression of Pythonic. To make a reverse() function that will return either a reversed string, tuple, or list, I wrote this:

(Toggle Plain Text)

def reverse(x):
	result = [x[len(x) - a] for a in range(1, len(x) + 1)]

	if type(x) == list:
		return result
	elif type(x) == tuple:
		return tuple(result)
	elif type(x) == str:
		return ''.join(result)

Whereas Arevos' much more elegant, and "pythonic" code looked like this:

(Toggle Plain Text)

def reverse(s):
    return { str : "".join, list : list, tuple : tuple }[type(s)](reversed(s))

I think the differences are obvious :p

Indigno · Apr 6th, 2006, 5:56 PM

Basic is the most readable language (to me) but it isn't at all powerful enough to do anything I want. I like python because (to me) it has a very basic-ish feel to it.

DaWei · Apr 6th, 2006, 6:15 PM

I thought pythonic was a man and woman with a non-sexual relationship

.

Arevos · Apr 6th, 2006, 6:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master

But the way things are written in it makes it seems as if there is there a beginning but no end such

I suspect this varies from person to person. When I read code, I take a lot of information from the indentation. Misaligned code is virtually unreadable to me until it's been cleaned up. The addition of an ending "end" or "}" adds no extra information for me.

With regards to the original question of this thread, I consider a program to be "pythonic" if it uses Python in an efficient manner, in terms of programming efficiency.

For instance, this is a Pythonic way of returning two variables:

(Toggle Plain Text)

def foobar():
    return "Foo", "Bar"

a, b = foobar()

And this is a very unpythonic (but very C-like) way of doing the same:

(Toggle Plain Text)

def foobar(list):
    list.append("Foo")
    list.append("Bar")

list = []
foobar(list)
a = list[0]
b = list[1]

Like Ruby, Python is a very high level language, and a pythonic way of programming will make maximum use of Python's features. Because Python is dynamic, classes and functions can be constructed and altered at run-time, and this leads to a more abstracted method of programming. Instead of creating several similar classes, you might devise a function to automate the creation. Instead of adding logging functionally manually to each function, you might create a metaclass to automatically do so.

Another thing to remember is that whilst Python is relatively small in syntax, it contains a number of tools and techniques that are worth knowing about. Looking around at some of the recipes on Python cookbook is a good way to learn about some of the more advanced tricks of the trade.

The idea that pythonic code should be readable is also a good one. As a rough rule of thumb, I've found that better coders produce neater and more readable code than bad ones. This may be because the programmer is actively thinking about how to create readable code, or it may be because a good programmer will be thinking about the structure and architecture a lot more than a bad one, and this may reflect in the code itself.

Dietrich · Apr 7th, 2006, 12:56 AM

Arevos hits the nail on the head!

Quote:

I consider a program to be "pythonic" if it uses Python in an efficient manner!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaWei

I thought pythonic was a man and woman with a non-sexual relationship

.

You must be thinking of pathetic?

Apr 6th, 2006, 11:36 AM	#1
Dietrich Professional Programmer Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 434 Rep Power: 4	What is your Definition of Pythonic? My main attraction to Python is readability of code. I always thought that this was rather pythonic. Any other thoughts or disagreements? __________________ I looked it up on the Intergnats!

Apr 6th, 2006, 11:55 AM	#2
Master Programmer Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: GA Posts: 99 Rep Power: 4	I don't really find it readable as you think. I do understand what the code does. But the formatting is not all that great. it is better to use braclet or begin and end like ruby does. Note i am not try to say that python is not good. But the way things are written in it makes it seems as if there is there a beginning but no end such (Toggle Plain Text) def blah(str): print(str) while(true): print(str) if(str == Nothing): break def dosomething(): print("something") def blah(str): print(str) while(true): print(str) if(str == Nothing): break def dosomething(): print("something") I don't really see that as been readable

Apr 6th, 2006, 1:40 PM	#3
Dietrich Professional Programmer Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 434 Rep Power: 4	I sort of like Ruby's end, but on the other hand it is not always very easy to figure out where the end begins. At least in Python I know that the colon starts the appropriate block indentation. However, mixed tab and space indentations, easy to do, can thoroughly ruin any Python code! I like Ruby and Python, they both have their strengths. Compared to C++ or Java, I feel like a kid in the candy store! So what do you call pythonic in Ruby? Rubiconic? __________________ I looked it up on the Intergnats!

Apr 6th, 2006, 3:21 PM	#5
King Professional Programmer Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 380 Rep Power: 3	I think C++ is way more readable, but then again I program it alsmot everyday. __________________ I am Addicted to Linux!

Apr 6th, 2006, 4:36 PM	#6
Jessehk The Oblivious One Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 648 Rep Power: 4	I think some of the complicated list comprehensions are unreadable unless you've written them yourself. Specifically the stuff I've seen Sane write... Getting back on topic, this is my impression of Pythonic. To make a reverse() function that will return either a reversed string, tuple, or list, I wrote this: (Toggle Plain Text) def reverse(x): result = [x[len(x) - a] for a in range(1, len(x) + 1)] if type(x) == list: return result elif type(x) == tuple: return tuple(result) elif type(x) == str: return ''.join(result) def reverse(x): result = [x[len(x) - a] for a in range(1, len(x) + 1)] if type(x) == list: return result elif type(x) == tuple: return tuple(result) elif type(x) == str: return ''.join(result) Whereas Arevos' much more elegant, and "pythonic" code looked like this: (Toggle Plain Text) def reverse(s): return { str : "".join, list : list, tuple : tuple }[type(s)](reversed(s)) def reverse(s): return { str : "".join, list : list, tuple : tuple }[type(s)](reversed(s)) I think the differences are obvious :p __________________ Dr. Zoidberg: [ecstatic] I'm going to a movie... with FRIENDS! Last edited by Jessehk; Apr 6th, 2006 at 4:48 PM.

Apr 6th, 2006, 1:52 PM	#4
Master Programmer Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: GA Posts: 99 Rep Power: 4	Rubyist

Apr 6th, 2006, 5:56 PM	#7
Indigno Professional Programmer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Anywhere non-productive Posts: 267 Rep Power: 0	Basic is the most readable language (to me) but it isn't at all powerful enough to do anything I want. I like python because (to me) it has a very basic-ish feel to it.

Apr 6th, 2006, 6:15 PM	#8
DaWei Resident Grouch Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,453 Rep Power: 10	I thought pythonic was a man and woman with a non-sexual relationship . __________________ Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code. Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Programming Forums > Script Programming > Python

What is your Definition of Pythonic?