[dajohnson89]

At risk of speaking from ignorance (i dont really know python), isn't this succinctness an aim of python? A lot of python enthusiasts i speak with decry the verbosity of Java and point to how much less code it takes to do the same thing in python.

[trymas]

Python has a famous adage `explicit better than implicit`.

You want to be explicit but still concise while writing python.

I do not have any experience with Java, but I guess when writing Java you can feel that you use too many words than needed (i.e. definition of verbose [0]), wikipedia has a hello world example[1] and it feels just heavy.

IMHO if you write pythonic code, very often it feels like writing/reading prose, seems like talking to computer. You are not too implicit, neither too verbose.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verbose

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#"H...

[agumonkey]

I'm guilty of this, because words are so meaningless to me. I'd rather have single lettre or glyph than ~clear yet ambiguous words.

[dec0dedab0de]

It's really more about readability, In this case threads_pipeline is much easier to understand than th. Descriptive names also means needing less comments.

[anentropic]

The succinctness of Python (such as there is) comes from the syntax itself. On the other hand, obscure variable names are discouraged. It's not a 'code golf' language. The aim is clarity and readability - unobscured by either verbose boilerplate or excessive brevity.

A library author should provide names which are descriptive and clear. Users can then abbreviate them however much or little as we choose (by import aliasing). For example it is very common to see `import numpy as np`... but you wouldn't want them to publish the library as `np`. It should have its proper name.

One reason for this is if I'm exploring code in a REPL or IDE with tab-completion. You want to have some idea what a module is for, without having to play 'guess the abbreviation'.