undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfreehunter5y ago0 comments

I don't have any numbers to back up what you've said, but I believe it to be true. I also believe (but have no facts to back it up) the statement I'm about to make is true: most of the people who use Python are people who would not call themselves computer programmers.

I also believe it to be true that the majority of people using any kind of technology (not just computers but all technology) like the workflow they use and are comfortable with and don't want to learn new workflows or features, so that's not usually a very good statistic to base any decisions off of.

If those are true, should Python position itself as "the non-programmer's language" or continue trying to be everything to everyone, no matter what the use case?

0 comments

musingsole5y ago

Your second assumption is pretty problematic. While Python is popular with the non-developer crowd, it's not like it isn't itself a professionally used language. And it is used extensively. I've used it as my primary work language for 5 years now in industries from processor design, embedded systems, and now data backends. In all cases, it was the easiest to use language that did the most work. More and more work flows to it because of this.

freehunterOP5y ago

Why is it problematic? I never said or implied that Python should only be used by non-programmers, just that I believe the majority of Python users would call themselves data scientists (or just any kind of scientist I guess) or analysts or traders or accountants or researchers or any other job where writing code is not your job, you just write code to help with your actual job.

The point is, of course those people don't want to have to learn new stuff. They don't care about the code or the language, it is just a means to an end. That's why I left off on the question: should the future of Python be decided by the majority of its users, or by the people who get the deepest use out of the language?

I'm not making an argument either way, just trying to further the conversation around what features Python should get in the future.

musingsole5y ago

I was trying to be gentle in saying it's wrong. Consider https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019. Python is the second most loved language on a survey where the majority of respondents have 'developer' in their title.

1 more reply

mumblemumble5y ago

At least as I'm interpreting it, the substance of the assumption you proposed is not problematic in the slightest. (And I also suspect, but cannot demonstrate, that you are correct.) But specific the words you used to express it bring connotations that you may or may not have intended.

There's a certain perception out there that languages that are primarily used by non-programmers are mostly useful for writing non-programs.

A lot of people who program but don't have "software developer" on their business cards may not realize it, but calling themselves non-programmers invokes certain biases about the values that they bring to the table when choosing a programming language among people who do have "software developer" on their business cards.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsfreehunter5y ago0 comments

If those are true, should Python position itself as "the non-programmer's language" or continue trying to be everything to everyone, no matter what the use case?

0 comments

musingsole5y ago

freehunterOP5y ago

I'm not making an argument either way, just trying to further the conversation around what features Python should get in the future.

musingsole5y ago

1 more reply

mumblemumble5y ago

There's a certain perception out there that languages that are primarily used by non-programmers are mostly useful for writing non-programs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse