this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

19171 readers
1402 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev
1
Exam Answer (programming.dev)
submitted 5 months ago by JPDev@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Especially since python is right there.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean once you get beyond bash-like scripts python is esoteric as fuck, adding oop to what is essentially a shell is a terrible idea

That said, there's plenty of languages with good syntax that is still good when you get into more complex stuff (modern C#, scala, kotlin and more)

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I disagree. Python is not "esoteric" when making objects. The syntax is certainly easier than in Java.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The syntax is certainly easier than Java

And VisualBasic's syntax is easier than COBOL, but this isn't a competition to make the least offensive heap of putrid garbage, so why does it matter?

Python works just fine for basic scripts, frankly it's amazing for it, but oop and functional programming is so incredibly obviously badly shoehorned in that huge swathes needs scrapping and version 4 releasing

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Then help me understand please. What do you mean by "esoteric" in regards to oop in Python compared to a language better suited for it?