On Jun 23, 4:43 pm, "Rhodri James" <rho...@wildebst.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> > And how exactly does your example express itself in a more
> > "syntactically-correct" "linear-flow" than the two code snippets i
> > provided earlier, hmmm?
>
> You did rather carefully pick an example where Python's syntax flow the
> other way round
"rather carefully picked" you say? As if built-in functions are hardly
ever used? No I think *your* statement was "rather carefully picked"
to try and discredit me. Sorry my friend that might work on the less
astute readers round here, but it has no effect on me ;-)
> and then present all the least Pythonic paraphrases of the
> Ruby functional approach.
What? Did you just use the words "Pythonic" and "Ruby" in the same
sentence all the while keeping a strait face? Ruby's naturally linear
phrasing is one thing i like about the language (and map of course),
short of those two niceties i prefer Python.
Would you like to present another way of achieving the same code that
makes Python look better, i would love to see it. Here is an even more
interesting example of "Ruby linear-flow" verses "Python lisp-style-
nesting"...
RUBY:
["three","one","two"].map{|x| x.capitalize}.sort.join(',')
PYTHON
','.join(sorted(map(lambda x:x.title(), ["three", "one", "two"])))
I do the Python code all the time without thinking twice about it. But
to a noob i'll bet Ruby is more decipherable in these cases. It's
ironic that Python was created by a westerner and we read it from
right to left, and Ruby was created by a easterner and we read it left
to right. Go figure?
;-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
