What is with all the hate lately on anyone who dares to write Python with different semantics than employed by the stdlib builtins?
'You've invented your own incompatible dialect of python. '
It isn't a "dialect." You don't need a different parser. There are no macros. It is simply a container with slightly different semantics than the stdlib ones.
"You've broken composition, objects and the general design choices of python."
No those all still work and if you don't like his semantics don't use them. They are perfectly readable and easily understandable if you having a passing familiarity with the pattern he is using.
tl;dr : I don't see what the big deal is, people are allowed to write Python however they want.
No I did read your post. Actually I read all of them. My point is he didn't "break" composition. In isn't like you import this guy's library and suddenly function composition no longer works. Breaking isn't the right word. It is agressive and wrong on a semantic level.
You could say "You functional list does not properly support composition. Here are some problems." You posts were needlessly combative. I only spoke out because I have seen this kind of thing cropping up recently with respect to Python functional libraries.
"people are encouraged to write python other people understand."
As I said, the semantics of his library are reasonably clear on inspection doubly so if you read the docs.
EDIT:
I just re-read some of your other posts on this thread. You really do keep banging on "He made his own 'dialect.'" To clarify, no he didn't. Making a library isn't a dialect. A dialect needs to be a significant enough departure that you would actually need a different parser/interpreter. That is a "dialect." If you would like I can point you actual Python dialects. This is a library. Deal with it.
"the semantics of his library are reasonably clear on inspection"
does .remove() mutate in place or not ? depends on the constructor!
this would be an example of breaking composition - you can no longer use a function built for an immutable list on a mutable list. I am sure I explained this too.
a dialect is a style, in linguistic terms, if I speak a dialect of english, I still speak english.
if I needed a different parser/interpreter I am pretty sure that is the stage of 'new language' where new syntax and semantics are introduced.
the 'dialect' he is introducing is a arc/clojure inspired syntax for what /already/ exists in python.
thanks for the semantic pedantry! the long and the short of it is that if you want to write python, write python that looks like python. not like scheme or clojure.
as someone who gets paid to maintain shitty code, i'd rather people stuck to the existing idioms of the language, rather than blindly copy paste them from another language.
"if I needed a different parser/interpreter I am pretty sure that is the stage of 'new language' where new syntax and semantics are introduced.
the 'dialect' he is introducing is a arc/clojure inspired syntax for what /already/ exists in python."
No a dialect is another version of the language. For instance python3 is a dialect of python, just as python2 is. They are not 100% compatible.
"as someone who gets paid to maintain shitty code, i'd rather people stuck to the existing idioms of the language, rather than blindly copy paste them from another language."
It is not his problem you see a lot of shitty python. It is also not his problem if you want every one to stay stuck in the poor design choices that were made in the stdlib a long time ago. You can fight evolution of languages or you can embrace them. I don't see you advocating for "thou" in English ;-)
"the 'dialect' he is introducing is a arc/clojure inspired syntax for what /already/ exists in python."
"syntax" --> no thats is what is defined by the grammar of python. This is python syntax.
"a dialect is a style, in linguistic terms, if I speak a dialect of english, I still speak english."
No it is a mutation. But I agree with you if you speak a dialect you still speak the "language." Olde English is still English.
---
However my main point remains. You are needlessly combative in this thread. He made a library you attacked him like he insulted the Pope of Python. I am sorry you maintain shitty Python but you don't need to take you anger about that out on some poor guy on hacker news.
'You've invented your own incompatible dialect of python. '
It isn't a "dialect." You don't need a different parser. There are no macros. It is simply a container with slightly different semantics than the stdlib ones.
"You've broken composition, objects and the general design choices of python."
No those all still work and if you don't like his semantics don't use them. They are perfectly readable and easily understandable if you having a passing familiarity with the pattern he is using.
tl;dr : I don't see what the big deal is, people are allowed to write Python however they want.