User talk:Hout
When is "fully linted" not idiomatic
When the user
- Knows their code is not idiomatic.
- Knows that their non-idiomatic, rejected style is nevertheless not picked up by an automatic linter.
You carefully ignore that RC is for idiomatic code and fill RC with code written in a style rejected by the Python community. You leave comments on typing, that are not Python. You remove templates pointing out that your code should be improved. You employ libraries and a methodology Python programmers are not taught - It's Python not Haskell.
You cry bully when you don't get your way. (Yet again).
RC shouldn't be turned into a showcase for your many un-idiomatic code samples. Yes we know Python can be written like that, but the community rejected it.
--Paddy3118 (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
You don't have the standing to make those judgements. The only interesting comments about compliance with standards are made by the widely-used linters. Linters are frequently somewhat unflattering about your own imperative code, but I make no comment.
The only interesting and instructive Rosetta comment is an alternative draft. If you prefer a different style of functional Python, just contribute a better draft – we will all learn and benefit, and I, for one, look forward to that.
The goal of Rosetta code is to provide contrastive insight. Parading poorly-linted but allegedly regimental uniform on frequently unreliable and weakly-conceived code, while shrilly declaring yourself to be a higher authority than the tooling – well, if that provides contrastive insight, then I'm not sure that it is insight into computational issues. Hout (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- A linter is not an arbiter of idiomatic Python. "You" appealed to the Python community, had your flavour of functional programming rejected, and I haven't seen the Python community change their mind.
- One could write a Lisp-ish library in Python and correctly execute tasks whilst adopting a Lisp style, with CAR's CADR's, etc. That would not make it idiomatic Python, even though it could be made to pass a linter.
- You know you are doing the same - deliberately writing in a foreign style and stating that because it passes a linter - that is OK. Your code rejects the idioms taught as good Python replacing them with others. You wish to write Python like a Haskel family language, then complain when called out on that. Others reading some of your examples are perplexed at the style presented. Your library of functions that you use - Which languages have them built in and require their new coders to learn them? Not Python , as you well know.
- You have no intention of producing idiomatic Python. You have manner of writing Python that has been rejected by the community and seek to perpetuate it on RC. Please improve your examples by writing in a more idiomatic manner.