Clem and all,

I find python string format syntax to be close enough to printf. E.g.,

   print('%.4f ns, (%.4f, %.4fj)' % (tap[0], tap[1].real, tap[1].imag))

However, the example highlights a shortcoming.  While complex numbers
are supported by the language, there is no formatting support like
'%.5j' ('j' is my made up format char) to directly format a complex number.

I work in an RF lab focused on work with hardware and lab gear. Some
points in favor of python are (1) lab gear is controlled by SCPI, (2)
DSP relies on complex math, and (3) RF propagation modeling is
computationally intense.

Item (1) is easily performed with python, (2) with python or
Matlab/octave, and (3) is 'it depends.'  An engineer's friend went from
slide rule, to calculator, fortran/c (fortran for numbers, c for
hardware), and now python. A laptop with python or matlab is the new
'calculator.'  As to (3), if you will use the program for large
scenarios, use c or fortran. For small runs or to dovetail results with
control of lab gear python fills the bill.  (I even went to the slightly
insane length of converting a classic prop model from fortran to python
for that reason: https://udel.edu/~mm/itm/ )

I agree 110% that python white space formatting is horrible.  I can't
say many times I took someone else's program, made a quick change, to
discover one of us used tabs and the other spaces.

Mike Markowski

On 8/2/23 10:07 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> IMO (Like Larry) no printf stinks.  But the real killer for my sustain
> for Python is the use white space and being typeless.   My daughter
> loves it for her cloud development and we argue a bit.  But it was the
> first language she really mastered in college and she never took a
> competitive languages course so I’m not so sure really had experienced
> much beyond it for real programs.   Maybe I’m just an old fart but
> between C, Go and Rust I’m pretty good.  I do write scripts in Bourne
> shell and or awk truth be known.
>