deno_std VS pytudes

For reference (for the issues you mentioned): 1. This issue was opened almost immediately to solve the weird .only function not working https://github.com/denoland/deno_std/issues/2979 2. That looks weird to me, will get back to you on this one since it should work I think 3. Generally polluting the global namespace isn't great, but because we're only polluting the namespace of a module (and we choose what parts to import), I personally find it quite freeing. I entirely understand how that might feel awkward. 4. you CAN specifying only writing to certain directories! --allow-write=/path/to/dir would allow that!

At least for the ones related to trees, it's just a renaming. Below is a link to the PR. When I initially implemented these trees, I chose the names BSTree and RBTree to keep the names short. I'm guessing the person that proposed renaming them did so to make it more obvious what they are.

https://github.com/denoland/deno_std/pull/2400

The standard library is separate from the runtime. It wouldn't break backward compatibility if you were to update. For example, if you were importing RBTree and upgraded Deno to the latest release, it would keep working just fine. You would only really need to switch to using RedBlackTree instead if there was a change made to it that you wanted.

I think the only time you would need to update your standard module imports to be able to use newer versions of the Deno runtime if the standard module were depending on runtime APIs that have a breaking change.

It is like Demo deprecating fs.exists().[1]

[1]https://github.com/denoland/deno_std/discussions/2102

This was fun to read through.

I would need to profile the code, but the startup time being bad for Deno seems like maybe a combination of the code in here being unoptimized:

https://github.com/denoland/deno_std/blob/0ce558fec1a1beeda3...

(Ex. Lots of temporaries)

And usage of the readFileSync+TextDecoder API instead of readTextFile (which is also a docs issue since it's suggests the first one). It seems the code loads the 100MB into memory, then converts to another 100MB of utf8, then parses with that inefficient csv decoder. The rust and go versions look to be doing stream/incremental processing instead.

But it there's some talk to reconsider it

Sorry to hear that. I want to provide expect API in deno_std in the future: https://github.com/denoland/deno_std/issues/1779

I just migrated the module to Deno and rewrote the test cases using the Deno test runner. Also contributed a bug fix to the test runner that I encountered during the migration. An npm version is still available and automatically generated from the Deno code via a small bash script (rewriting imports, adding an index.ts, etc.).

Much of Node.js is written in C, yet it's still called Node.js.

Deno has some JavaScript/TypeScript in it. On GitHub https://github.com/denoland/deno is 22.8% JavaScript and 13.2% TypeScript, and https://github.com/denoland/deno_std is 68.2% JavaScript and 31.6% TypeScript.

So to me it's misleading about the name, but not about what Deno is written in.

Peter Norvig's work is great to learn from https://github.com/norvig/pytudes

I've been a programmer for 25 years. A realization that has crept up on me in the last 5 is that not everyone thinks that functions should be short: there are two cultures, with substantial numbers of excellent programmers belonging to both. My question is: how do we maintain harmonious, happy, and productive teams when people can disagree strongly about this issue?

The short-functions camp holds that functions should be short, tend toward the declarative, and use abstraction/implementation-hiding to increase readability (i.e. separable subsections of the function body should often be broken out into well-named helper functions). As an example, look at Peter Norvig's beautiful https://github.com/norvig/pytudes. For a long time I thought that this was how all "good programmers" thought code should be written. Personally, I spent over a decade writing in a dynamic and untyped language, and the only way that I and my colleagues could make that stuff reliable was to write code adhering to the tenets of the short-function camp.

The long-functions camp is, admittedly, alien to me, but I'll try to play devil's advocate and describe it as I think its advocates would. It holds that lots of helper functions are artificial, and actually make it _harder_ to read and understand the code. They say that they like "having lots of context", i.e. seeing all the implementation in one long procedural flow, even though the local variables fall into non-interacting subsets that don't need to be in the same scope. They hold that helper functions destroy the linear flow of the logic, and that they should typically not be created unless there are multiple call sites.

The short-function camp also claims an advantage regarding testability.

Obviously languages play a major role in this debate: e.g. as mentioned above, untyped dynamic languages encourage short functions, and languages where static compilation makes strong guarantees regarding semantics at least make the long-function position more defensible. Expression-oriented and FP-influenced languages encourage short functions. But it's not obvious, e.g. Rust could go both ways based on the criteria just mentioned.

Anyway, more qualified people could and have written at much greater length about the topic. The questions I propose for discussion include

- Is it "just a matter of taste", or is this actually a more serious matter where there is often an objective reason for discouraging the practices of one or other camp?

- How can members of the different camps get along harmoniously in the same team and the same codebase?

I have the same impression. Reading the code, he uses global variables [1], obscure variable (k, bw, fw, x) and module names ("pal.py" instead of "palindromes.py"), doesn’t respect conventions about naming in general (uppercase arguments [2], which even the GitHub syntax highlighter is confused about). This feels like code you write for yourself to play with Python and don’t plan to read later.

Some parts of the code feel like what I would expect from a junior dev who started learning the language a couple weeks ago.

[1]: https://github.com/norvig/pytudes/blob/952675ffc70f3632e70a7...

[2]: https://github.com/norvig/pytudes/blob/952675ffc70f3632e70a7...

Prolog is excellent for bikeshedding, in fact that might be its strongest axis. It starts with everything you get in a normal language such as naming things, indentation, functional purity vs side effects, where to break code into different files and builds on that with having your names try to make sense in declarative, relational, logical and imperative contexts, having your predicates (functions) usable in all modes - and then performant in all modes - having your code be deterministic, and then deterministic in all modes. Being 50 years old there are five decades of learning "idiomatic Prolog" ideas to choose from, and five decades of footguns pointing at your two feet; it has tabling, label(l)ing, SLD and SLG resolution to choose from. Built in constraint solvers are excellent at tempting you into thinking your problem will be well solved by the constraint solvers (it won't be, you idiot, why did you think that was a constraint problem?), two different kinds of arithmetic - one which works but is bad and one which mostly works on integers but clashes with the Prolog solver - and enough metaprogramming that you can build castles in the sky which are very hard to debug instead of real castles. But wait, there's more! Declarative context grammars let you add the fun of left-recursive parsing problems to all your tasks, while attributed variables allow the Prolog engine to break your code behind the scenes in new and interesting ways, plenty of special syntax not to be sneezed at (-->; [_|[]] {}\[]>>() \X^+() =.. #<==> atchoo (bless you)), a delightful deep-rooted schism between text as linked lists of character codes or text as linked lists of character atoms, and always the ISO-Standard-Sword of Damocles hanging over your head as you look at the vast array of slightly-incompatible implementations with no widely accepted CPython-like-dominant-default.

Somewhere hiding in there is a language with enough flexibility and metaprogramming to let your meat brain stretch as far as you want, enough cyborg attachments to augment you beyond plain human, enough spells and rituals to conjour tentacled seamonsters with excellent logic ability from the cold Atlantic deeps to intimidate your problem into submission.

Which you, dear programmer, can learn to wield up to the advanced level of a toddler in a machine shop in a mere couple of handfuls of long years! Expertise may take a few lifetimes longer - in the meantime have you noticed your code isn't pure, doesn't work in all modes, isn't performant in several modes, isn't using the preferred idiom style, is non-deterministic, can't be used to generate as well as test, falls into a left-recursive endless search after the first result, isn't compatible with other Prolog Systems, and your predicates are poorly named and you use the builtin database which is temptingly convenient but absolutely verboten? Plenty for you to be getting on with, back to the drawing boar...bikeshed with you.

And, cut! No, don't cut; OK, green cuts but not red cuts and I hope you aren't colourblind. Next up, coroutines, freeze, PEngines, and the second 90%.

Visit https://www.metalevel.at/prolog and marvel as a master deftly disecting problems, in the same way you marvel at Peter Norvig's Pytudes https://github.com/norvig/pytudes , and sob as the wonders turn to clay in your ordinary hands. Luckily it has a squeaky little brute force searcher, dutifully headbutting every wall as it explores all the corners of your problem on its eventual way to an answer, which you can always rely on. And with that it's almost like any other high level mostly-interpreted dynamic programming / scripting language.