this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
308 points (90.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

32692 readers
388 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Explanation: Python is a programming language. Numpy is a library for python that makes it possible to run large computations much faster than in native python. In order to make that possible, it needs to keep its own set of data types that are different from python's native datatypes, which means you now have two different bool types and two different sets of True and False. Lovely.

Mypy is a type checker for python (python supports static typing, but doesn't actually enforce it). Mypy treats numpy's bool_ and python's native bool as incompatible types, leading to the asinine error message above. Mypy is "technically" correct, since they are two completely different classes. But in practice, there is little functional difference between bool and bool_. So you have to do dumb workarounds like declaring every bool values as bool | np.bool_ or casting bool_ down to bool. Ugh. Both numpy and mypy declared this issue a WONTFIX. Lovely.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] eager_eagle 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

So you have to do dumb workarounds like declaring every bool values as bool | np.bool_ or casting bool_ down to bool.

these dumb workarounds prevent you from shooting yourself on the foot and not allowing JS-level shit like "1" + 2 === "12"

[–] semperverus 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

The JS thing makes perfect sense though,

"1" is a string. You declared its type by using quotes. myString = "1" in a dynamically typed language is identical to writing string myString = "1" in a statically typed language. You declare it in the symbols used to write it instead of having to manually write out string every single time.

2 is an integer. You know this because you used neither quotes nor a decimal place surrounding it. This is also explicit.

"1" + 2, if your interpreter is working correctly, should do the following

  • identify the operands from left to right, including their types.

  • note that the very first operand in the list is a string type as you explicitly declared it as such by putting it in quotes.

  • cast the following operands to string if they are not already.

  • use the string addition method to add operands together (in this case, this means concatenation).

In the example you provided, "1" + 2 is equivalent to "1" + "2", but you're making the interpreter do more work.

QED: "1" + 2 should, in fact, === "12", and your lack of ability to handle a language where you declare types by symbols rather than spending extra effort writing the type out as a full english word is your own shortcoming. Learn to declare and handle types in dynamic languages better, don't blame your own misgivings on the language.

Signed, a software engineer.

[–] lwuy9v5 11 points 7 months ago

TypeError is also a correct response, though, and I think many folks would say makes more sense. Is an unnecessary footgun

[–] eager_eagle 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

of course it makes sense, the language has made questionable choices that make working with it a frustrating experience - and that's by design

A reasonable language would raise/return an error because a wrong result is often more harmful than an error.

Signed, a software engineer.

lol

[–] semperverus 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

lol

I take it you don't actually get paid to code and solve actual problems then

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Well, C has implicit casts, and it's not that weird (although results in some interesting bugs in certain circumstances). Python is also funny from time to time, albeit due to different reasons (e.g. -5**2 is apparently -25 because of the order of operations)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how your example is 'funny'. That's what you expect to get. -5^2^ is -25. (-5)^2^ = 25.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

And how's that different from js's "1" + 2? One can always convert a number to string, and only sometimes -- a string to a number, so it's pretty logical to go with the former.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

-5**2 is apparently -25 because of the order of operations)

Which is correct

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well, the link doesn't load for me, so if that's smth related to python and not a justification of the behavior from math's pov, I know that's expected. Hence,

because of the order of operations

But just as well is "1" + 2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Well, the link doesn’t load for me

Yeah, they're doing an upgrade right now. Yes, it's the Maths explanation - -25 is the correct answer.

[–] guy 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"1" + 2 === "12" is not unique to JS (sans the requirement for the third equals sign), it's a common feature of multiple strongly typed languages. imho it's fine.

EDIT: I did some testing:

What it works in:

  • JS
  • TS
  • Java
  • C#
  • C++
  • Kotlin
  • Groovy
  • Scala
  • PowerShell

What produces a number, instead of a string:

  • PHP
  • SQL
  • Perl
  • VB
  • Lua

What it doesn't work in:

  • R
  • C
  • Go
  • Swift
  • Rust
  • Python
  • Pascal
  • Ruby
  • Objective C
  • Julia
  • Fortran
  • Ada
  • Dart
  • D
  • Elixir

And MATLAB appears to produce 51, wtf idk

[–] Perhyte 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And MATLAB appears to produce 51, wtf idk

The numeric value of the '1' character (the ASCII code / Unicode code point representing the digit) is 49. Add 2 to it and you get 51.

C (and several related languages) will do the same if you evaluate '1' + 2.

[–] guy 1 points 6 months ago

Oh that makes sense. I didn't consider it might be treated as a char