this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
157 points (94.9% liked)

Technology

59466 readers
5251 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 14 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (2 children)

Conal’s point is that no, in fact there are almost zero programmers that fully understand even the simplest Python code since it is a dynamically typed language.

Here’s where I heard it.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/type-theory-forall/id1546295833?i=1000654070339

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Conal’s point is that no, in fact there are almost zero programmers that fully understand even the simplest Python code

Can you summarize the reasoning there, for those of us who are mildly curious but don't have time to spend on a podcast?

By "fully understand", does he mean knowing exactly how data are being laid out in memory, or when it is reclaimed? Knowing exactly what CPU instructions are being executed, registers used, and stack frames created behind the abstractions? Something else?

since it is a dynamically typed language.

What does Python's type system have to do with it? Python doesn't quietly convert objects of one type to another behind your back, like some other languages do.

What concerns me is your condescending tone.

I didn't read condescension in that comment. It's possible that none was intended.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Condescending tone was not intended, but on rereading I can see how I've come across that way. Sorry about that.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 12 points 11 hours ago

It’s fine. I’m sure I contributed somewhat o the misreading of the tone too. Namaste, my friend.