@renzev to Programmer [email protected]English • 9 months agoSolutions? Where we're going, we don't need solutions.imagemessage-square162arrow-up11.14Karrow-down151file-text
arrow-up11.09Karrow-down1imageSolutions? Where we're going, we don't need solutions.@renzev to Programmer [email protected]English • 9 months agomessage-square162file-text
Please dont take this seriously guys its just a dumb meme I haven’t written a single line of code in half of these languages
minus-square@calcopirituslink6•9 months agoYeah, no python package has “py”, JavaScript “.js” or java “java”. None at all.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•edit-29 months agoFor Python I think there’s an actual point though: A lot of Python projects are user friendly wrappers for pre-compiled high-performance code. It makes sense to call something “py<SomeKnownLibrary>” to signal what the library is.
minus-square@calcopirituslink1•9 months agoWell, it’s the same in rust, that’s why I agree more with the first interpretation. There is an existing solution in C/C++, just make some binding and call it *.rs Both python and rust use py and rs in the same way, to signal that it’s the python/rust version of that library. Of course, there are exceptions, but that’s what usually happens.
Yeah, no python package has “py”, JavaScript “.js” or java “java”. None at all.
For Python I think there’s an actual point though: A lot of Python projects are user friendly wrappers for pre-compiled high-performance code. It makes sense to call something “py<SomeKnownLibrary>” to signal what the library is.
Well, it’s the same in rust, that’s why I agree more with the first interpretation.
There is an existing solution in C/C++, just make some binding and call it *.rs
Both python and rust use py and rs in the same way, to signal that it’s the python/rust version of that library.
Of course, there are exceptions, but that’s what usually happens.