Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi...
by qwertyuiop924 on Sunday August 28, 2016 @08:55PM
(#12379335)
No, that's Java. Flat is better than nested: no self-respecting Python programmer would write hierarchy that deep.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi...
by ubernostrum on Monday August 29, 2016 @06:31AM
(#12381030)
No, Java looks like the famous quotation about the nail and the horse from:
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi...
by joesb on Monday August 29, 2016 @03:08AM
(#12380486)
So which rule take precedents here? Namespace is obviously not flat, at least it's more nested than one without namespace.
That's the problem I have with people praising Zen of Python as if it means anything. It's like a bible you just pick the verse you like to justify your action even if it might conflict with other rules. Then you praise the whole thing for being so wise.
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi...
by qwertyuiop924 on Monday August 29, 2016 @07:03AM
(#12381128)
It means a lot: good python code follows it. However, yes, some of the verses conflict, because it turns out that good advice sometimes contradicts itself. All I can say is don't go too far in either direction.
Re:Why bad scientific code beats code following “best practi...
by LyndsySimon on Monday August 29, 2016 @12:11PM
(#12382869)
Much of the point of the Zen of Python is that it's self-contradictory.