It does, but the lack of static typing means it is more difficult to interact with foreign code (correctly).
When I pull in a library in a JVM language or Rust etc., I quickly glance at the documentation to get a rough idea of the entrypoint for the library.
Like, let’s say I want to create a .tar file, then the short “Writing an archive” example tells me all I need to know to get started: https://crates.io/crates/tar
If I need to find out more, like how to add a directory, then having the tar Builder initialized is enough for me to just ask my code completion. It will tell me the other available functions + their documentation + what parameters they accept.
If I make a mistake, the compiler will immediately tell me.
In Python, my experience was completely different. Pulling in a library often meant genuinely reading through its documentation to figure out how to call it, because the auto-completion was always unreliable at best.
Some libraries’ functions wouldn’t even tell you what types you’re allowed to feed into them, nor what type they return, and not even even diving into their code would help, because they just never had to actually specify it.
PyCharm a super powerful IDE, VSCode has tons of Python extensions that L rival PyCharm’s functionality, lots of other IDEs have decent python support
Yes, PyCharm is a super powerful IDE when compared to Nodepad++. But it’s a trashcan fire compared to IntelliJ or even the much younger RustRover.
Half the time it can’t assist you, because no one knows what types your code even has at that point.
The other half of the time, it can’t assist you, because, for whatever reason, the Python interpreter configured in it can’t resolve the imports.
And the third half of the time, it can’t assist you, because of what I already mentioned above, that the libraries you use just don’t specify types.
These are problems I’ve encountered when working on a larger project with multiple sub-components. It cost us so much time and eventually seemed to just be impossible to fix, so I ended up coding in a plain text editor, because at least that wouldn’t constantly color everything red despite there being no errors.
These problems are lessened for smaller projects, but in that case, you also don’t need assistance from an IDE.
or a distribution build
Not sure exactly what you mean by this
What I mean by that is that Python tooling is terrible. There’s five different ways to do everything, which you have to decide between, and in the end, they all have weird limitations (which is probably why four others exist).
or you’re more familiar with another language
Yeah this can be said about any language. “You’re quickest in the language you’re most familiar with”. That’s basically a tautology.
Yes. That is all I wanted to say by that. People just often claim that Python is a great prototyping language, to the point where the guy I was responding to, felt they’re doing the wrong thing by using the familiar tool instead. I’m telling them, they’re not.
What I mean by that is that Python tooling is terrible. There’s five different ways to do everything, which you have to decide between, and in the end, they all have weird limitations (which is probably why four others exist).
There’s actually at least 15 different ways (the fifteenth one is called rye and it’s where I got that article from). And yes your entire post is super accurate. The pycharm thing is ridiculous too because RubyMine is excellent in comparison. You just pull in a library with Ruby’s excellent (singular) package manager, and then RubyMine is able to autocomplete it pretty much perfectly. PyCharm can’t even manage to figure out that you added a new dependency to whatever flavor of the week package manager you’re using this time.
Look, it’s fine if you prefer other languages to python, I won’t besmirch anyone’s preferences. But literally everything in your post exists in nearly every programming language (minus some of the typing stuff, I’ll give you that, but it’s getting a lot better). Like, every language has some learning curve to setting up tooling, or configuring your IDE the way you like it, or learning how to navigate documentation so that it’s useful, or trying to decide on one of the multiple ways of doing things. I guarantee, as someone with limited experience with Java, I’d have a difficult time setting up and using IntelliJ, and figuring out which build/packaging system I need to use, and figuring out how to use whatever libraries I need, simply because I’m unfamiliar with the ecosystem. That’s all you’re describing - the initial learning curve in getting familiar with a new language. Which is why I pointed out all the things I pointed out. It’s where I start when I’m introducing developers to python.
No, it really is unique to python. Most other languages have one or two package managers, not 15 (15 is not an exaggeration). Ruby has one. Rust has one. Java has two (maven and gradle). Elixir has one. Swift has one.
Python programmers think it’s normal when it most definitely is not. Even your IntelliJ example isn’t correct because IntelliJ will literally install and set up the jdk for you, but pycharm is completely unable to do that and it’s not because JetBrains hasn’t tried. Python tooling is just really really really bad.
Oh boy, you really wanna talk about it?
It does, but the lack of static typing means it is more difficult to interact with foreign code (correctly).
When I pull in a library in a JVM language or Rust etc., I quickly glance at the documentation to get a rough idea of the entrypoint for the library.
Like, let’s say I want to create a .tar file, then the short “Writing an archive” example tells me all I need to know to get started: https://crates.io/crates/tar
If I need to find out more, like how to add a directory, then having the tar
Builderinitialized is enough for me to just ask my code completion. It will tell me the other available functions + their documentation + what parameters they accept.If I make a mistake, the compiler will immediately tell me.
In Python, my experience was completely different. Pulling in a library often meant genuinely reading through its documentation to figure out how to call it, because the auto-completion was always unreliable at best.
Some libraries’ functions wouldn’t even tell you what types you’re allowed to feed into them, nor what type they return, and not even even diving into their code would help, because they just never had to actually specify it.
Yes, PyCharm is a super powerful IDE when compared to Nodepad++. But it’s a trashcan fire compared to IntelliJ or even the much younger RustRover.
Half the time it can’t assist you, because no one knows what types your code even has at that point.
The other half of the time, it can’t assist you, because, for whatever reason, the Python interpreter configured in it can’t resolve the imports.
And the third half of the time, it can’t assist you, because of what I already mentioned above, that the libraries you use just don’t specify types.
These are problems I’ve encountered when working on a larger project with multiple sub-components. It cost us so much time and eventually seemed to just be impossible to fix, so I ended up coding in a plain text editor, because at least that wouldn’t constantly color everything red despite there being no errors.
These problems are lessened for smaller projects, but in that case, you also don’t need assistance from an IDE.
What I mean by that is that Python tooling is terrible. There’s five different ways to do everything, which you have to decide between, and in the end, they all have weird limitations (which is probably why four others exist).
Yes. That is all I wanted to say by that. People just often claim that Python is a great prototyping language, to the point where the guy I was responding to, felt they’re doing the wrong thing by using the familiar tool instead. I’m telling them, they’re not.
There’s actually at least 15 different ways (the fifteenth one is called rye and it’s where I got that article from). And yes your entire post is super accurate. The pycharm thing is ridiculous too because RubyMine is excellent in comparison. You just pull in a library with Ruby’s excellent (singular) package manager, and then RubyMine is able to autocomplete it pretty much perfectly. PyCharm can’t even manage to figure out that you added a new dependency to whatever flavor of the week package manager you’re using this time.
Oh man, this isn’t meant to shit talk Rye (from what I’ve heard of it, it actually is a decent effort), but it’s literally this comic then:
Yup
Look, it’s fine if you prefer other languages to python, I won’t besmirch anyone’s preferences. But literally everything in your post exists in nearly every programming language (minus some of the typing stuff, I’ll give you that, but it’s getting a lot better). Like, every language has some learning curve to setting up tooling, or configuring your IDE the way you like it, or learning how to navigate documentation so that it’s useful, or trying to decide on one of the multiple ways of doing things. I guarantee, as someone with limited experience with Java, I’d have a difficult time setting up and using IntelliJ, and figuring out which build/packaging system I need to use, and figuring out how to use whatever libraries I need, simply because I’m unfamiliar with the ecosystem. That’s all you’re describing - the initial learning curve in getting familiar with a new language. Which is why I pointed out all the things I pointed out. It’s where I start when I’m introducing developers to python.
No, it really is unique to python. Most other languages have one or two package managers, not 15 (15 is not an exaggeration). Ruby has one. Rust has one. Java has two (maven and gradle). Elixir has one. Swift has one.
Python programmers think it’s normal when it most definitely is not. Even your IntelliJ example isn’t correct because IntelliJ will literally install and set up the jdk for you, but pycharm is completely unable to do that and it’s not because JetBrains hasn’t tried. Python tooling is just really really really bad.