- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Also, do y’all call main() in the if block or do you just put the code you want to run in the if block?
Still better than having to create a new class just to implement
public static void main(String[] args) {}
Relevant Fireship video: https://youtu.be/m4-HM_sCvtQ
Since Java 21, this has been shortened significantly. https://www.baeldung.com/java-21-unnamed-class-instance-main
Only took 27 years to make the Java “Hello, world!” kinda sane.
Free standing functions in Java?! This can’t be true.
I know right? It even has var with implicit typing now. While I prefer Kotlin any day, there’s been quite a few qol improvements to Java over the last few years.
I would put my code in a
def main()
, so that the local names don’t escape into the module scope:if __name__ == '__main__': def main(): print('/s') main()
(I didn’t see this one yet here.)
I’m a little new to Python standards. Is this better or worse than putting the
def main():
outside the if statement (but callingmain()
inside it)I intended this an sarcastic example; I think it’s worse than putting the main outside of the branch because of the extra indent-level. It does have an upside that the
main()
doesn’t exist if you try import this as an module.I thought confusion about indent levels was the whole point of using python
But it feels like main function should not be indented
Could someone explain this please? I’m still a noob.
Python has a bunch of magic variables, like
__name__
. This one contains the name of the module you’re currently in (usually based on the file name), so if your file is calledfoo.py
, it will have the valuefoo
.But that’s only if your module is being imported by another module. If it’s executed directly (e.g.
python foo.py
), it will instead have a__name__
of__main__
. This is often used to add a standalone CLI section to modules - e.g. the module usually only defines functions that can be imported, but when executed it runs an example of those functions.Really helpful explanation, thanks.
checks username
So it’s you they’re always talking about
It is, it’s the other Barry.
Basically, when you compile a program written in Rust or C/C++ (the first and second panels respectively), the compiler needs to know what’s supposed to be executed first when the program is run directly (i.e. when you click on the executable), which in these languages, is denoted by a special function called
main()
. Executable files can also contain functions and data structures that can be called by other programs, and when they are, you wouldn’t want to run an entire complex and resource intensive program if another program only needs to call a single function from it, so in that case the other program will call the function it wants but not main, so only that function executes and not the entire program.However, Python is a scripting language that’s interpreted. So every Python source file is executable provided you have the Python runtime. Python also doesn’t have native support for main functions in the same way Rust and C/C++ does, and it will execute every line of code as it reads the source file. This is why a single line Python file that just calls print is valid, it doesn’t need to be wrapped in a main function to execute. However, what if your Python file is both meant to be executed directly and provides functions that other Python files can call? If you just put the main routine in the root of the file, it would be executed every time another program tries to import the file in order to call functions from it, since the import causes the file to be interpreted and executed in its entirety. You can still just have a main function in your file, but since Python doesn’t natively support it, your main function won’t do anything if you run the file directly because as far as Python is concerned, there is no executable code at the root of the file and you haven’t called any functions.
The workaround is to have a single if statement at the root of the file that looks like this:
if __name__ == '__main__': main()
It checks a special variable called
__name__
. If the Python file is directly executed,__name__
will have the value of the string'__main__'
, which satisfies the if statement so main() is called. If another Python file is calling a function, the value of__name__
will be the name of that file, so main() is not called. It’s clunky and not that efficient, but, 1, it works, and 2, if you cared about efficiency, you wouldn’t be writing it in Python.thats why i name my modules main.py
Really helpful explanation, thanks.
All code needs to have an entry point.
For Python and some other languages, this is the start of the file.
For other languages, this is a special function name reserved for this purpose - generally, “main”.
In the first kind of language, the thought process is basically: I have the flow of execution, starting at the top of the file. If I want to make a library, I should build the things I want to build, then get out of the way.
In the other kind of language, the thought process is basically: I am building a library. If I want to make an executable, I should create an entry point they the execution starts at.
The debate is honestly pretty dumb.
Python doesn’t need the name main check to function at all. that’s just a convenience feature that lets developers also include arbitrary entry points into modules that are part of a library and expected to be used as such. If you’re writing a script, a file with a single line in it reading
print("hello world")
will work fine when run:python thescript.py
Nothing prevents you from putting a call to “main()” in the global scope
The point of the name==main logic is that it checks if that is the file that was invoked (like running
python filename.py
). If you just put a main() in the global scope it will be called either when the file is invoked or loaded (which can cause unintended consequences).Dumb person question: if it’s good practice to do this so things don’t go sideways, shouldn’t it be a built-in feature/utility/function/whatever?
It is “built-in” as the name is part of python. However, Python runs top to bottom, rather than having a special entrypoint. So name is just a utility you can use in your design.
While it can be a good practice to define a main entrypoint, that’s more of a design decision and not hard rule. Many applications would not benefit from it because there is only one way to actually call the application to begin with.
Edit: Also not a dumb question. All programming languages have unique elements to them due to how they were envisioned and or developed over time (Pythons 30 years old)
I really appreciate the explanation!
Just cross your fingers nobody attempts to import it…
Does everyone call the function of the script main? I never use main(), just call the function what the program is supposed to do, this program calculates the IBNR? The function is called calculate_IBNR(), then at the end of the script if name = ‘main’: calculate_IBNR(test_params) to test de script, then is imported into a tkinter script to be converter to an exe with pyinstaller
All of mine are called
do_thing()
because after a few days of working on it, the scope creep always means the original name was wrong anyway.
“pythonic”
The if block is where my arg parser goes
Call the function from the if block.
Now your tests can more easily call it.
I think at my last job we did argument parsing in the if block, and passed stuff into the main function.
if debug.getinfo(1).what == "main" then -- ... end
Not that you’ll ever use it. No, seriously.
What kind of psychopath would put the code in the if block.
I work in an academic / research environment. Depending who wrote it, even seeing a
__name__ == "__main__"
is a bit of a rare thing…Academic code is absolutely horrific.
Fortunately, it is possible to translate it for practical applications.
As someone in academia who writes code, I can confirm.
Do you also have nothing but love for those 50+ cell Jupyter notebooks that don’t use a single function and have everything in the global scope?
the best thing is when not even the author knows the correct order of running the cells; because of course it isn’t top-to-bottom.
Yeah, and also zero dependency management, so you are free to figure out what combination of Python, Tensorflow and Keras will make it not throw random exceptions.
And don’t forget the number one rule: you must use all the graphing libraries, all the time.
python isn’t the only language to do “execute everything imported from a particular file and all top level statements get run”. both node and c# (but with restrictions on where top level statements can be) can do that type of thing, I’m sure there’s more.
python conventions are unique because they attempt to make their entrypoint also importable itself without side effects. almost no one needs to do that, and I imagine the convention leaked out from the few people that did since it doesn’t hurt either.
for instance in node this is the equivalent, even though I’ve never seen someone try before:
if (path.resolve(url.fileURLToPath(import.meta.url)).includes(path.resolve(process.argv[1]))) { // main things }
you can, no one stopping you
Looks at all the Python scripts in my bin folder that I wrote.
custom bin folders are a realm no God dares to tread
I can and I do
*trollface*
Never heard of
def main(): pass if __name__ == '__main__': main()
?
What is the point of this?
Not having tons of code in one if statement, but in a function.
And scope. Variables declared in the if can be read everywhere, variables declared in the function are limited to that function.
I thought you were saying to literally use
def main(): pass
, that’s why I was confused
I remember how weird this looked the first time I saw it and while I may now understand it, it still looks jank af
Now think about this, you have logic that doesn’t make sense when run directly, but you need it to be a library.
You have multiple name=main statements in some of your functions
I’m not sure I’m following the implication. Name=main is for scripts primary, is it not?
I’ve never thought to add more than one of these conditionals anyway…
So you might have a script that does stuff as a library, and it should get environment variables and other info from the calling script. You use the same script for doing one off stuff on different computers.
So you make it do something slightly different or make it set it’s path and look into the current folder when you run it directly. This change in logic could be in a few points in the script.
I still wonder why.
unless it’s for something that you want to work as an importable module and a standalone tool, then why do you need that?
The main two reasons that I can think of to include this even when you have no intention of importing this as a library are:
- For unit testing you will need to import as a module.
- Sometimes I will run a python interactive interpreter and then import my script so that I can do some manual testing without needing to change my main function or if stmt.
Python: I’m so readable that I’m practically executable pseudo-code
Also Python:
if __name__ == '__main__':
. . .
Heard of it, was too lazy to do it that way.
To be fair I now do it that way, but not when I was learning Python.
If the file is just a class I usually put example usage with some default arguments in that block by itself. There is no reason for a “main” function. It’s a nice obvious block that doesn’t run when someone imports the class but if they’re looking at the class there is a really obvious place to see the class usage. No confusion about what “main()” is meant to do.
if __name__ == '__main__': # MyClass example Usage my_object = MyClass() my_object.my_method()
I definitely do for quick scripts, but I try to break this habit. The biggest advantage of
def main()
is that variables are local and not accessible to other functions defined in the same script, which can sometimes help catch bugs or typos.Why would you waste a function call on something so completely redundant?
~For real though, arg parsing goes in the if, then gets dispatched to whatever function call is needed to run the proper script.~
It really doesn’t. It’s a scripting language, functions are there but at it’s core it runs a script. The issue is that it was so easy to start with that people started doing everything in it, even though it sucks for anything past complex scripts
It is the excel of databases.
compared with other languages at the time, the ease of access and readability makes it worth it. plus, the heavy duty stuff is usually handled by more optimised code line numpy or sklearn…
Readability? Me eyes bleed from a day of partially staring at python code, and there is a whole another week of that ahead. Tzinch (Edit: Tzeentch) help me
Like in every programming language, it depends who wrote the code. OK, *nearly every programming language, see: LISP.
You can write cryptic, write-only programs in about any language, but you can even write readable and maintainable PERL scripts (despite people claiming this to be impossible).
As much as I am inclined to agree with this, still can’t
see: LISP
Also, see: Python with more than three lines of logic. I could suspect that’s just the me-versus-whitespaces thing, but no, YAML files do not get me dizzy in under thirty seconds of reading. Van Rossum made a huge miscalculation here
Everyone’s welcome to their opinion of course, but I find Python more readable than anything else and I resent the visual clutter required to make intentions plain in other languages. Feels like having a conversation where people say the words “comma”, “period”, etc.
I also spend more time with Python than anything else and I suspect these two facts about me relate, lol
Someone should get their hands on someone like me and someone like you and study their brains. I spend most time with PHP and C++, and Python looks like an attempt to write code like prose literature. Very interesting how much of this is habbit, as it can’t be just that: reading prose and poetry in English/Russian/Japanese never produced this kind of resentment
I would love that! I do think there are probably interesting underlying personality factors / preferences for a lot of this stuff as well.
I do think that many of Python’s characteristics map to my own personality and I bet there’s something to that. Things like syntax of course, but not strictly syntax, also things like “The Zen of Python”, and the way its a “jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none”. I also really kind of need the freedom and accompanying responsibility to break any “rules” on a whim (Python will happily let you overwrite its own internals while running, for instance), but I almost never do anything that uses it…
I could probably keep going lol. Feels like a “people looking like their pets” scenario, lmao
Excel recently added the ability to run python code lol
What’s the difference between a “scripting” language and a “real” one?
A scripting language controls an existing binary. A non-scripting language is used to create a new binary.
It’s a scripting language. What means that the computer runs it line by line, without needing to get the entire project first.
That is not how Python works. There are very few languages that work by executing line-by-line anymore. Unix shell scripts are one of the few holdouts. JavaScript also does it to a certain extent; the browser starts executing line-by-line while a compiler step works in the background. Once the compiler is done, it starts execution of the compiled form right where the line-by-line execution left off. It helps JavaScript be more responsive since it doesn’t have to wait for the compiler to finish.
Python still has the
-i
option, and it still runs the same language as the files interface.The
-i
option is simply interactive mode. All commands still go through a compiler.
Unix shell scripts are one of the few holdouts.
I don’t know if this applies to other shells, but bash will not only execute your script line-by-line, it will also read it line-by-line. Which means that you can modify the behavior of a running script by editing lines that have not yet been executed*. It’s absolutely bonkers, and I’m sure that it has caused more than one system failure, during upgrades.
* For example, if you run the following script
echo "hello" sleep 5 echo "goodbye"
and then edit the third line before the 5 second sleep has elapsed, then the modified line will be executed.
I didn’t say it wasn’t real, it’s just a scripting structure and not object oriented, so it doesn’t make sense for it to start by looking for a “main” object
What would make it “object oriented”?
You know what, I take that back: https://docs.python.org/3.13/faq/general.html#what-is-python
not object oriented
I don’t think we have a name for what you are trying to say here.
(And yeah, “object oriented” isn’t it.)
procedural programming is more akin to that, but python has far to many oop concepts to be considered procedural imo
Procedural and OOP aren’t mutually exclusive terms. Most OOP programs are ultimately procedural in nature. Often, the only difference is that the first argument to the function is to the left the function name and separated by a dot.
fair, I just think it’s misleading to call python procedural, but it lines up with what the commenter above was describing and searching for the term for
I’d say the term “procedural” itself is an issue. Pretty much any language can be done that way if you choose. IIRC, the creator of Clojure wanted Java to work more that way, and he did it by having a single class full of functions. It’s not a natural way to write Java, and that’s why he invented Clojure.
Scripting languages are real. Generally people consider dynamic languages scripting languages but it’s not that simple.
main.py
or did you not read the manual?Its called
runpy.run_script
Depends on how lazy I am at the moment.