pytudes VS Zulip

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.

I think it depends a lot on what your git repository is.

If it's specifically source code for anything that's intended to run, then avoiding including the outputs is a smart move. But then, if that's the case, there's a good chance you'd just be committing a .py file.

I like notebooks because they include output alongisde input. For example, Peter Norvig's Pytudes are all brilliant, quick notebooks that solve a particular puzzle[0]. The code itself might not be that interesting to run (unless you really want to confirm his strategy for wordle checks out) but reading through the notebooks makes for a great experience of simultaneously understanding his thought process, and seeing the solution.

I do a bunch of generative art stuff and have recently been experimenting with using notebooks as quick sketches[1]. I really like the workflow and end up with something like a journal that isn't necessarily intended to be ran repeatedly, but read over, where I can see the visual output created, as well as the method for it.

[0] Norvig's extremely cool pytudes, wordle example: https://github.com/norvig/pytudes/blob/main/ipynb/Wordle.ipy...

Zulip — Real-time chat with a unique email-like threading model. The free plan includes 10,000 messages of search history and File storage up to 5 GB. also, it provides a self-hostable open-source version.

(1) Zulip Chat - https://zulip.com/ - seems to be reasonably popular, but more people should know about it

I’ve been using it for over 5 years now [1], and it’s as good as ever. It’s way faster than any other chat app I’ve used. It has a good UI and conversation model. It has a simple and functional API that lets me curl threads and write blog posts based on them.

(only problem is that I Ctrl-+ in my browser to make the font bigger – I think it’s too dense for most people)

(2) re2c regex to state machine compiler - https://re2c.org

A gem from the 90’s, which people have done a great job maintaining and improving (getting Go and Rust target support in the last few years). I started using it in 2016, and used for a new program a few months ago. I came to the conclusion that it should have been built into C, because C has shitty string processing – and Ken Thompson both invented C AND brought regular languages to computing !!

In comparison, treesitter lexers are very low level, fiddly, and error prone. I recently saw dozens of ad hoc fixes to the tree-sitter-bash lexer, which is unsurprising if you look at the structure of the code (manually crawling through backslashes and braces in C).

https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-bash/blob/master/...

These fixes are definitely appreciated, but I think it indicates a problem with the model itself.

(based on https://lobste.rs/s/endspx/software_you_are_thankful_for#c_y...)

[1] https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/04/26.html

A few more truly in the vibe of open source projects not advertising their hosting providers: https://plane.so/ , https://element.io/ , https://www.loomio.com/ , https://zulip.com/ , and it keeps going... Very few open source projects, in the FOSS sense, are advertising their hosting provider.

I was so excited to see this happen!

I'm not a customer of yours, but your blog posts inspired me a lot. Your journey through quitting caffeine is a great and heartening read.

I've got two things to say;

1) Will you consider source-availabling the web portal (app.keygen.sh) too? Some enterprises could use it for easy management/support for custoner's licenses. Although now that I think about it, it could also discourage custom, more suitable implementations for each use-case... I'm torn on this one. I would like to see it available on GitHub too just out of curiosity too. It's very beautiful.

2) For a team + customers' chat, I cannot recommend Zulip enough. It's a joy to use and has the most innovative chat system I've ever seen. https://zulip.com

I hope your business keeps prospering!

Zulip | Senior Flutter Engineer | REMOTE or San Francisco | Full-time | https://zulip.com/

At Zulip, we’re out to build the world’s best collaboration platform, and we’re committed to keeping it 100% open source. Zulip is the only modern team chat app that is designed for both live and asynchronous conversations. Our product serves as the communication hub for businesses, open-source projects, educators and communities around the world.

We're building the next generation of Zulip's mobile apps in Flutter. We're looking for a senior engineer with Flutter experience to join our small core team and help define the future of team chat. Our Flutter prototype is just a few months old, so this is a greenfield opportunity to help shape the app's architecture from early on.

For full details, check out https://zulip.com/jobs/. Apply at [email protected].

Anyways, I'm an internet stranger, not a social media expert. So let me know what you all think. And if we make a discord or zulip or something to make this a reality, let me know and I'd love to help any way I can.