[chaosfox]

I have been working on bioinformatics for many years now, and I see this question often asked by beginners, people that insist in using just a single language are crippling themselves and their work. You can and should learn both and more, programming languages are just tools, the more tools you have the better prepared you will be for solving any problems that arise.

[twobitshifter]

It’s not a really good article in that way. There should be a decision tree per application that guides you to the language choice.

What are the R packages and what is available in Python? Are the Python or R packages just calling a C library after all, then does memory or single threading matter?

What about Julia, can you better express your thoughts and equations in Julia and that’s most important for your project?

Do you want to work in notebooks or build ‘production’ code?

Do you need to put your work on the web?

[epgui]

Agreed— But also both are really terrible languages, so I’d encourage people to broaden their horizons even more fearlessly.

[d_sem]

Python is not a terrible language. It's widely used in reputable organizations by highly informed and capable software engineers to great effect. Generic language criticism in 2024 is an anti-pattern that intellectually hinders new engineers. There are certainly preferences for different use cases and highlighting those differences are productive discussion.

For Example: One of the most common technical concern points to bring to a new engineer is the Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) that restricts Python to execute in one thread only.

[epgui]

> Generic language criticism in 2024

Research on PL design is alive and well in 2024, and Python is nowhere near the cutting edge. I never said it didn't get the job done, or that people shouldn't learn or use it.

It's just not as elegant or simple of a PL design as people sometimes seem to think it is. It's hard to look at something like Clojure or Haskell next to Python and to come to the conclusion that python is particularly elegant.

I think my main point got lost on people who took offense to my dislike for python: my main point is that you should also learn languages that are very different / that are in an altogether different branch.

[331c8c71]

Are you getting paid for broadening your horizons or for getting sh*t done?

Stroustrup was spot on about two types of programming languages.

[azangru]

Grand-parent: programming languages are tools. The more tools you can wield, the better you can choose the right one for the job.

Parent: yeah, but R and python are shit tools; learn how to use better tools too.

You: are you paid to learn how to use better tools, or are you paid to solve problems with shit tools?

[d_sem]

What you are really doing:

You: If these tools are not ideal, what is a better tool?

Parent: I won't tell you. I just simply criticize online and provide no technical guidance, instead I gatekeep my definition of quality tooling. I think being a good senior expert does not include showing best practices I have developed through my years of experience.

You: Oh. Then I don't want to listen to you because I'm more interested in making personal progress on my professional journey than listening to uninitiated opinions provided without context.

[azangru]

> You: If these tools are not ideal, what is a better tool?

I am sure there's the word rust in there somewhere ;-) After all, HN has been raving about polars.

[chthonicdaemon]

Languages aren't just good or bad in the abstract. It's about problem-tool fit. The author mentions a specific field and evaluates the fit of R and Python. Do you believe there is a language with better fit to Bioinformatics? I'd like to hear your recommendation.

[epgui]

> Languages aren't just good or bad in the abstract.

I don't know about that. There's certainly no "perfect" language, but to claim that python is brilliant or elegant language design is to not know a whole log about PL design.

I think I'm mainly getting downvoted because Python is popular, and people think that means it must be inherently good.