Re: Python-indentation (Was: Re: Is the world coming to an end?)
wrote in message news:mailman.3049.1301786442.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> PS I don't want to say every of Python's decisions is wrong. Many of them >> are great (but defenitely not significant intendation). > On a side-note, I thought the same, until I realised I hate redundancies > even more than I hated forced code-styles. And code-indentation AND > brackets are clearly redundant, since they pretty much convey the same > information "block", only one is structural and the other visual. > > Nowadays, my complaint on Python-indentation are that they aren't fully > enforcing a STRICT policy on indentation. Mixed-code indentation in > 3d-part > can cause a lot of unexpected bugs. > My main objection to Python's indentation was always: It *doesn't* enforce *anything*. It makes *assumptions*. (Plus, I like to leave temporary debugging code unindented so it's easy to spot. And easy to remove before comitting.) ...But now I've simplified my stance on Python's indentation to: I'm very allergic to it. (Easier to say, and I don't end up needed to defend it ;) ) > > Personally, I'd like to see a world where "plain old text" (whatever that > means, considering all the related encoding and line-ending-problems > constantly biting us multi-platform non-ASCII-people in the behind) were > replaced with something just slightly higher-level, such as semantic > trees. > For programming, the notion would be to, instead of storing "text", > storing > the AST of the parsed code, letting the editor render the tree to the > user's preferences, to create true separation between information (the > structural code) and visualization (the readable code). > > If a standardized format for the serialized tree was used, VCS:es could > use > it to record changes not as "lines changed", but changes in the AST. > Name-changes would not change entire lines, but just the references to > that > symbol. Wrapping a block of code into an "if-statement" could clearly be > visualized, instead of appearing like a big chunk of code were COMPLETELY > rewritten (when in reality it was just indented.) > > For other tree structured formats, if nothing else, efficient standardized > tree-representation could significantly boost performance of some > protocols. (XML, I'm looking at you) > > I know, it's not going to happen, but one can dream? > Yea, I've sometimes felt the same way. There's a program out there called JetBrains MPS that's sort of similar to that. It's interesting as a proof-of-concept, but it's so rediculously slow and bloated it makes a fully-loaded Eclipse seem as quick and lean as windows notepad (Just creating a new project took about half-an-hour, IIRC. 'Course, I'm on a 32-bit single-core, but even still...) Been awhile since I tried it though, maybe it's gotten better since then.
Re: Python-indentation (Was: Re: Is the world coming to an end?)
On 4/2/11 8:01 PM, bearophile wrote: PS I don't want to say every of Python's decisions is wrong. Many of them are great (but defenitely not significant intendation). There's a large difference between Python and D design process: Python devs discuss ideas about possible designs, even for days, and then the most preferred one is chosen. Only in uncommon cases, when there is no consensus, Guido chooses (like in the "X if P else Y" syntax). This, and the care they give to that process (they believe that good syntax matters), produce a language that's very well designed (despite some flaws). Bye, bearophile That's how it works for D too. Andrei
Re: Python-indentation (Was: Re: Is the world coming to an end?)
Am 03.04.2011 03:01, schrieb bearophile: >>> PS I don't want to say every of Python's decisions is wrong. Many of them >>> are great (but defenitely not significant intendation). > > There's a large difference between Python and D design process: Python devs > discuss ideas about possible designs, even for days, and then the most > preferred one is chosen. Only in uncommon cases, when there is no consensus, > Guido chooses (like in the "X if P else Y" syntax). This, and the care they > give to that process (they believe that good syntax matters), produce a > language that's very well designed (despite some flaws). > > Bye, > bearophile IMHO D is a language that is very well designed (despite some flaws) as well, so it seems like D's design process isn't any worse ;)
Re: Python-indentation (Was: Re: Is the world coming to an end?)
> > PS I don't want to say every of Python's decisions is wrong. Many of them > > are great (but defenitely not significant intendation). There's a large difference between Python and D design process: Python devs discuss ideas about possible designs, even for days, and then the most preferred one is chosen. Only in uncommon cases, when there is no consensus, Guido chooses (like in the "X if P else Y" syntax). This, and the care they give to that process (they believe that good syntax matters), produce a language that's very well designed (despite some flaws). Bye, bearophile
Re: Python-indentation (Was: Re: Is the world coming to an end?)
PS I don't want to say every of Python's decisions is wrong. Many of them are great (but defenitely not significant intendation). On a side-note, I thought the same, until I realised I hate redundancies even more than I hated forced code-styles. And code-indentation AND brackets are clearly redundant, since they pretty much convey the same information "block", only one is structural and the other visual. Nowadays, my complaint on Python-indentation are that they aren't fully enforcing a STRICT policy on indentation. Mixed-code indentation in 3d-part can cause a lot of unexpected bugs. Personally, I'd like to see a world where "plain old text" (whatever that means, considering all the related encoding and line-ending-problems constantly biting us multi-platform non-ASCII-people in the behind) were replaced with something just slightly higher-level, such as semantic trees. For programming, the notion would be to, instead of storing "text", storing the AST of the parsed code, letting the editor render the tree to the user's preferences, to create true separation between information (the structural code) and visualization (the readable code). If a standardized format for the serialized tree was used, VCS:es could use it to record changes not as "lines changed", but changes in the AST. Name-changes would not change entire lines, but just the references to that symbol. Wrapping a block of code into an "if-statement" could clearly be visualized, instead of appearing like a big chunk of code were COMPLETELY rewritten (when in reality it was just indented.) For other tree structured formats, if nothing else, efficient standardized tree-representation could significantly boost performance of some protocols. (XML, I'm looking at you) I know, it's not going to happen, but one can dream?
