Stories with Tag conciseness

• Elliptical Python Programming

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-04-10 12:53:56

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post "Elliptical Python Programming" explores techniques for writing concise and expressive Python code by leveraging language features that allow for implicit or "elliptical" constructs. It covers topics like using truthiness to simplify conditional expressions, exploiting operator chaining and short-circuiting, leveraging iterable unpacking and the * operator for sequence manipulation, and understanding how default dictionary values can streamline code. The author emphasizes the importance of readability and maintainability, advocating for elliptical constructions only when they enhance clarity and reduce verbosity without sacrificing comprehension. The goal is to write Pythonic code that is both elegant and efficient.

  The blog post "Elliptical Python Programming" by Susam Pal explores the concept of writing concise, yet readable Python code by leveraging the language's features to omit explicitly stated elements when their meaning can be readily inferred from context. This approach, dubbed "elliptical" programming, draws an analogy to ellipsis in grammar, where words are omitted without sacrificing the overall understanding of the sentence. The author argues that such conciseness, when applied judiciously, can enhance both the readability and elegance of Python code.

  The post begins by distinguishing between terseness and conciseness. While terseness aims for minimal character count, sometimes at the expense of clarity, conciseness prioritizes readability by expressing the core logic with the fewest necessary elements. Elliptical programming, as defined by the author, is a form of conciseness achieved through strategic omission of redundant or implicitly understood parts of the code.

  Several examples are provided to illustrate the principles of elliptical programming in action. These examples showcase how Python's features, such as list comprehensions, generator expressions, conditional expressions, and lambda functions, can be employed to create compact and expressive code snippets. For instance, transforming a traditional loop with explicit conditional checks and temporary variables into a streamlined list comprehension eliminates redundancy and improves readability. Similarly, leveraging the conciseness of lambda functions for short, simple operations contributes to more elegant and efficient code.

  The author meticulously explains how these features facilitate the omission of verbose elements like explicit loop variables, temporary lists, or intermediary function definitions. By directly expressing the desired transformation or logic, elliptical programming reduces the cognitive load required to understand the code, enabling a quicker grasp of the underlying intent.

  Furthermore, the blog post highlights the importance of finding a balance between conciseness and clarity. While embracing elliptical style can significantly improve code readability, overusing it or applying it inappropriately can lead to obscurity and decreased understandability. The author cautions against sacrificing clarity for the sake of brevity and recommends prioritizing readability over extreme compactness. The goal is not to write the shortest possible code, but to express the logic with the utmost clarity using the fewest necessary elements.

  In conclusion, the post advocates for a thoughtful approach to writing Python code, encouraging developers to embrace the power of elliptical programming to achieve both conciseness and readability. By understanding the nuances of Python's expressive features and applying them judiciously, programmers can write more elegant, efficient, and ultimately more maintainable code. The key lies in finding the sweet spot where conciseness enhances clarity rather than hindering it.

  • Python
  • programming
  • code style
  • conciseness
  • readability
  • idiomatic python
  • best practices
  • pythonic
  • elliptical
  • compact code
  • syntax
  • code golfing

  Summary of Comments ( 14 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43643292

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely discussed the practicality and readability of the "elliptical" Python style advocated in the article. Some praised the conciseness, particularly for smaller scripts or personal projects, while others raised concerns about maintainability and introducing subtle bugs, especially in larger codebases. A few pointed out that some examples weren't truly elliptical but rather just standard Python idioms taken to an extreme. The potential for abuse and the importance of clear communication in code were recurring themes. Some commenters also suggested that languages like Perl are better suited for this extremely terse coding style. Several people debated the validity and usefulness of the specific code examples provided.

  The Hacker News post "Elliptical Python Programming" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43643292) sparked a discussion with several interesting comments, primarily focusing on the readability and maintainability implications of the coding style advocated in the article.

  One of the most compelling threads revolves around the trade-off between conciseness and clarity. Several commenters express concern that while the "elliptical" style might appear elegant and reduce code length, it could significantly hinder readability, especially for those unfamiliar with the specific idioms or tricks employed. This reduced readability could lead to increased difficulty in debugging and maintaining the codebase over time. One commenter specifically points out that code is read far more often than it is written, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing readability over conciseness.

  Another key point raised is the potential for misuse and abuse of these techniques. While some elliptical constructs can be genuinely helpful in reducing boilerplate, the concern is that excessive use or application in inappropriate contexts could lead to obfuscated and difficult-to-understand code. The consensus seems to be that these techniques should be used judiciously and only when they genuinely improve clarity rather than detract from it.

  Several commenters discuss the specific examples presented in the article, debating their merits and drawbacks. Some of the examples are considered more acceptable than others, with the more controversial ones involving complex nested comprehensions or unconventional uses of operators.

  The idea of implicit context also arises in the discussion. Commenters point out that while some elliptical constructs rely on implicit context, excessive reliance on implicit information can make the code harder to reason about. Explicitly stating the context, even if it adds a bit of verbosity, can often improve clarity and maintainability.

  Finally, the discussion touches on the importance of coding style guides and team conventions. Even if some developers find elliptical Python acceptable, the consensus is that consistency within a codebase is paramount. Adopting a consistent style, even if it's not everyone's preferred style, is crucial for collaboration and long-term maintainability. Therefore, teams should carefully consider the trade-offs before incorporating highly elliptical styles into their projects.

• C++: terser (shorter) lambda == SHORTY (ab-use?)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-04-09 06:15:26

  Verbose tl;dr

  This project introduces "SHORTY," a C++ utility that aims to make lambdas more concise. It achieves this by providing a macro-based system that replaces standard lambda syntax with a shorter, more symbolic representation. Essentially, SHORTY allows developers to define and use lambdas with fewer characters, potentially improving code readability in some cases by reducing boilerplate. However, this comes at the cost of relying on macros and introducing a new syntax that deviates from standard C++. The project documentation argues that the benefits in brevity outweigh the costs for certain use cases.

  The GitHub project "shorty" introduces a method for defining significantly more concise lambda expressions in C++. Traditional C++ lambdas, while powerful, can become verbose, especially for simple operations. This project aims to alleviate this verbosity by leveraging macros to create a highly abbreviated syntax for defining these anonymous functions.

  Instead of the standard [](){} structure for a lambda, "shorty" allows developers to use abbreviated forms like S{}, S{_<0>} or S{_<0>+_<1>}. These compact expressions leverage placeholder syntax, represented by underscores followed by the argument's index, to denote the lambda's parameters. For instance, _<0> refers to the first argument, _<1> the second, and so forth. The core idea is to replace the explicit listing of parameters within the capture list [] and parameter list () with this placeholder mechanism directly within the lambda's body {}.

  This approach significantly reduces the character count required to express simple lambda functions. For example, a lambda that adds two numbers could be expressed with extreme brevity using "shorty," compared to the more verbose conventional C++ lambda syntax. This can lead to more compact and potentially more readable code, particularly when dealing with a large number of small, self-contained lambda expressions. The project provides the macro definitions necessary to enable this abbreviated syntax. However, it's important to acknowledge that such heavy reliance on macros can potentially impact code readability and debuggability if overused or misused. The core benefit offered is terseness, trading conciseness for the explicitness of standard C++ lambda declarations.

  • C++
  • Lambda Expressions
  • Shorty
  • code golf
  • Syntactic Sugar
  • code readability
  • macros
  • Preprocessor
  • conciseness
  • Terseness
  • Abbreviation
  • code style
  • Header-only Library

  Summary of Comments ( 14 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43629380

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN users largely discussed the potential downsides of Shorty, a C++ library for terser lambdas. Concerns included readability and maintainability suffering due to excessive brevity, especially for those unfamiliar with the library. Some argued against introducing more cryptic syntax to C++, preferring explicitness over extreme conciseness. Others questioned the practical benefits, suggesting existing lambda syntax is sufficient and the library's complexity outweighs its advantages. A few commenters expressed mild interest, acknowledging the potential for niche use cases but emphasizing the importance of careful consideration before widespread adoption. Several also debated the library's naming conventions and overall design choices.

  The Hacker News post discussing the "shorty" C++ header for terser lambdas generated a moderate amount of discussion, mostly focused on the potential downsides and alternatives to the approach.

  Several commenters expressed concern over the readability and maintainability of code using shorty. One commenter argued that while brevity can be good, excessive terseness can harm readability, especially for those unfamiliar with the shorty syntax. They suggested that the potential gains in character count are outweighed by the increased cognitive load required to understand the code. Another user echoed this sentiment, pointing out that C++ is already a complex language, and adding more cryptic syntax like shorty further exacerbates the issue. They questioned the real-world benefit, suggesting that saving a few keystrokes is not worth the potential confusion.

  The discussion also touched upon the potential for namespace pollution and name clashes. One commenter pointed out the risk of unintended consequences when using generic short names like those provided by shorty, especially in larger projects. They suggested that more descriptive lambda names, even if longer, are generally preferable for clarity.

  Alternatives to shorty were also proposed. One user mentioned using an editor snippet or macro to achieve similar brevity without introducing new syntax. Another suggested leveraging existing C++ features like auto and structured bindings to simplify code without sacrificing readability. A commenter highlighted the benefits of refactoring complex logic into separate functions, thereby reducing the need for lengthy lambdas in the first place. They argued this approach often leads to more organized and understandable code.

  A few comments briefly acknowledged the potential usefulness of shorty in specific, limited contexts, such as competitive programming or code golfing, where character count is paramount. However, the general consensus seemed to be that for most practical applications, the potential drawbacks of shorty outweigh its benefits. There was a clear preference for maintaining code clarity and readability over achieving extreme terseness.