On Thursday, September 4, 2014 7:56:31 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > On Thursday, September 4, 2014 7:26:56 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: > >> >>>> NO PRINT > >> Why are you so dead against print? > > Because it heralds a typical noob code-smell > > [especially when the OP admits that BASIC is his background]
> And, of course, all those lovely Unix programs that produce output on > stdout, they're full of code smell too, right? I don't care what > someone's background is; console output is *not* code smell. Tell me the same after having taught a few thousand students If you are at the level of writing useful unix scripts, you are not going to be asking these questions. > Anyway, all you're doing is relying on the magic of interactive mode > to call repr() and print() for you. Yes its usually called DRY. That P in the REPL is put in a neat and nifty place. Why repeat? > >> Yes, or the OP could work with actual saved .py files and the > >> reliability that comes from predictable execution environments... and > >> use print. > > Dunno what you are talking about > > The interpreter-REPL is less reliable than a script? > When you start a script, you have a consistent environment - an empty > one. When you write a series of commands in the interactive > interpreter, the environment for each one depends on all the preceding > commands. So when you have a problem, you might have to copy and paste > the entire interpreter session, rather than just the one command. Agreed. Thats a downside. Very minor compared to the mess induced by unstructured print-filled noob code. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
