I write C# and Python, and C# is much more expressive than Python is and performs about 10x to 77x better. C# has much better pattern matching and has operators to deal with null and support for it in the type system. C# records can be serialized without issue (Python’s built in JSON serializer can only serialize dictionaries). Althoigh variable scoping in C# isn’t perfect (object patterns in if statements pollute the outer scope) variables at least aren’t just function scoped like in Python. You can define user defined primitve types in C# which enables bettrr support for domain typing than what is possible in Python.

I think his point was that Python is more useful for one-off stuff and I’d claim that much better than bash at those kinds of things.

But Python has so many quirks and bad designs. Function scoped variables, multiple inheritance, backwards comprehension syntax, poor pattern matching, poor handling of None and so much is convention based so you don’t get an error if you did it wrong. Python classes aren’t serializable (not even data classes).

Coupled with it’s awful performance I’m convinced the reason people use it is because they don’t know anything else.

I think it’s the right call. The issue with CPython’s JIT is that it isn’t really a true JIT like you would find in Java or .NET and suffers from the same issue that auto vectorization did in C++: you had to understand the internals of the CPython runtime to properly utilize it which isn’t a great developer experience.

Yeah, the fact that so much of the language is conventions as well doesn’t help. The type hinting is fairly poor as well, but then again type hinting is basically admitting that dynamic typing is a mistake (which it is).

Yeah, Python as a language is a mess IMO. We used it for making a electrical simulator and the language is…bad. The variable scoping, lack of explicit variable declaration, backwards comprehension syntax, the VERY CONFUSING object orientation design, that classes aren’t serializable by default, package story and deployment… It really has very little going for it, and combine all that with the awful performance characteristics it’s just…no.

Today I’m “Rust if it fits, if not Rust then C#”. We re-wrote the simulator in C# and performance was 70x better and the code got shorter, the deployment was hell of a lot easier since we went AOT and it just builds a native binary for the target platform. No virtual environment crap.

ArtCraft isn’t a Photshop clone in any sense of the word and it looks like no onr actually tried it. It’s a bunch of cobbled together AI tools. “Photoshop” is nothibg but AI prompted image generation and in-painting with Nano Banana (or other providers). It’s not reverse engineered photoshop. I spent parts of saturday getting it to work on local modals using Claude like apparently God intended, since I was pissed off that it was a rented service like everthing else in this fucking shit industry.

ArtCraft is an obviously hastily made piece of software that is intended to take Adobe Creative Cloud customers over to their cloud service.

If you want a Photoshop alternative you have Gimp and Krita. Those are well made pieces of software that isn’t vibe coded over a weekend.

Yeah, ArtCraft is very poorly made. It’s a bunch of AI tools jumbled together and is basic at best. It also buys into the entire Tech feudalism bullshit by being a cloud service.

It’s bash. Everyone is expecting nightmare code, and that’s why it’s fun!