[skeledrew]

It may be nice in the moment, but there's usually regret a few weeks/months down the line when trying to read that code, or angst for the next developer. There isn't that much more effort to just create a normal def to hold that increase in complexity suggested by the need for multiple statements. That's why functions were invented in the first place.

[throwitaway1123]

If a callback function gets really unwieldy then you should probably extract it from the call site and define it elsewhere, but that should happen because you decided to, not because the language's limitations coerced you into doing it. The lambda restrictions in Python are probably due to the complexities of parsing indentation based languages, and the clean code argument is just a helpful rationalization. I've never woken up in angst over the fact that I wrote a callback function with two statements in it.

[skeledrew]

There may be a few restrictions due to complexity, but lambdas isn't one. This is about decent and sane design choice[0] for readability.

[0] https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358

[throwitaway1123]

From the blog post you linked: "But the complexity of any proposed solution for this puzzle is immense, to me: it requires the parser (or more precisely, the lexer) to be able to switch back and forth between indent-sensitive and indent-insensitive modes, keeping a stack of previous modes and indentation level."

He's saying exactly what I said: that parsing (or more precisely lexing) makes the problem complex, because Python uses indentation semantically. He then rationalizes avoiding the implementation complexity with a gut feeling: "But none of that takes away my gut feeling".

[skeledrew]

You see it as a rationalization, while I see it as good sense. After all he also mentioned the "puzzles solvers" who solved the "puzzle", and some would likely have happily provided an implementation if he had given the go-ahead. But he outright refused specifically because "... a user interface can handle only so much complexity or it becomes unusable". You don't need to try putting words in his mouth after he specifically stated that maintaining a simple user interface is higher priority.

And the really ironic thing is that we wouldn't even be having this discussion now if not for this focus, because Python wouldn't have gained such popularity to the point it's also attracting more folk who would destroy what makes it so popular in the first place.

[throwitaway1123]

> You don't need to try putting words in his mouth after he specifically stated that maintaining a simple user interface is higher priority.

I'm not trying to put words in his mouth (I'm pretty sure I delineated his direct quotes with quotation marks). But I saw him write multiple paragraphs about the complexity of lexing multi-statement lambdas in Python due to its whitespace sensitivity, and then conclude that the user facing interface must necessarily be complex too, which just feels fallacious to me. If the complexity of the implementation doesn't factor into the design then why go through so much effort to communicate how difficult it is to lex? He compares the implementation to a "2000 step [...] infinite-dimensional" mathematical proof.

I just fundamentally don't buy the argument that one statement in a lambda is fine, but two is dark magic that needs to be removed from the call site and quarantined in a separate def, and I think if the implementation were simpler GVR wouldn't have been so diametrically opposed to the feature. Even if he outsourced the "puzzle solving" to an external contributor, no one enjoys the increased maintenance burden of a complex implementation.

Anyone who's ever written customer facing code knows what it's like to receive a seemingly simple feature request that's actually difficult to implement because of prior architectural decisions, and the "gut reaction" is to convince the user that the feature itself is bad. I hate to invoke comedy but this reminds me of the microservices meme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ

[skeledrew]

Maybe it seems fallacious because you've removed it from clarifying context. Keep in mind that he's also against any other form of statement grouping, and so I can definitely see where ambiguity could easily arise in nesting groups of statements. You should also note the "2 or 2000..." statement is just a jab toward mathematicians.

Bit of correction: no statements and a single - arbitrarily complex - expression. An expression can be naturally delineated by parentheses; a statement stands on its own. End of the day, support for statements in a lambda would lead to a need for new symbols. Yet another thing that the user has to learn and remember, whether they're a professional software developer using the language regularly or a biology student using it for part of a one-off project. Again, the outcome of those decisions is clear today, given the general standing of the language.