I use Levels filter tool for that in Krita. Already non-destructive.

Scala does look nice. Just a quick syntax view makes me want to give it a whirl when I want an alternative to Python. I used to code in C++, and C#. I use G’MIC (DSL) as my main. Scala seems right up my alley.

When I do commit, I write up the title of what I did, and describe it, and then use periods for related commits. Just easier.

I’m just glad I have other options than just Python. Am not afraid of writing my solutions either. I rarely use Python these day.

For small projects, rewriting is often superb. It allows us to reorganize a mess, apply new knowledge, add neat features and doodads, etc.

This. I’m coding to contribute to a open-source software with very small amount of coders, and with a non-mainstream Domain-Specific Language. A lot of the code I did before has been proven to work from times to time, but they all could benefit from better outputs and better GUI. So, I end up reengineering the entire and that’ll take a really long time, however, I do a lot of tests to ensure it works.

I been meaning to learn Ruby to get around using Python. I like Ruby syntax better.

This is great, even though if I code in Python, I’m not using it for performance reason, but for convenience.

I kind of like it. I can understand where it start and end.

Chances are there’s probably something similar to dictionary in Python in your languages or at least it’s a import/#include away. Although I don’t use general programming languages at all, in my used language (G’MIC), I do something like dict$var=input where $var is a defined variable, and this way I can access input by doing ${dict$var} and that’s similar to Python dictionary. In C++, there’s hash table implementation out there via github. That being said, there are sometimes when you don’t need a hashtable dependent on the hashmap, and sometimes, it’s just as simple as basic mathematics to access data.

Seems like a good idea, I’m hoping that the syntax is sane. As far as languages goes, I think you’re missing out on G’MIC to compare as it does have things like FFT and other tools all for image processing which is just part of digital signal processing. And then, there’s Python with libraries and so on.

This is what I prefer too! I also some times prefer to use bitshift when it comes to division or multiplication of power of 2.

I only stick with these:

• pull
• add
• commit
• push

Easy.

For raster graphics image processing, I’d highly recommend G’MIC. Otherwise, Python and especially for string using regex library. I wish there was a vector graphics version of G’MIC.

I only do raster graphics image processing, so G’MIC it is. A entire coding language and it’s a library in of by itself for that.

On non-DSL, don’t have a fave. I’ll choose one of these: Python, C++, C#.

Every languages has their own pitfalls. The answer on picking a language is to pick whatever works for you. There may be even domain-specific languages if you’re interested in a domain, and it can be way more flexible than general-purpose solutions for that domain too.

I use 4 languages.

1. C++ for adding features to a program.
2. C# for making .dll for an application (Paint.NET). Kinda similar purpose to what I do with G’MIC, except so much more limited.
3. Python for processing strings
4. G’MIC for creating/editing raster graphics images (volumetric too)

Now, I wish there was a vector equivalent to G’MIC, but there isn’t.

Also, highlighted the way you expect when you click next to braces works too.

Braces too can be wrong. But, one is less likely to get it wrong. Modern editors often allows one to highlight matching braces immediately after selection, and rainbow braces(if available) makes it clear on the nest level.

I didn’t say it doesn’t help. But, it alone does not really help for bad and long code, but you are correct in that it would be worse with the wrong indentation. Like you pointed out, the program could do the wrong thing if there is a wrong indentation where indentation matters which is one of my issue with something like Python. And languages with explicit exit scope tend to not have that issue while adding to the benefit of making longer code readable. Where white-space sensitive languages really shine on in my opinion are small codes, and that’s where I think of using Python.

From some one who used Python as it was the easiest solution to few of my problems, and having to experience languages with brackets and/or endif/fi/done as ways to limit scope, I find that having things like brackets and/or scope terminators easier to parse and less error-prone. I’m thinking about moving on to Ruby whenever I had a need where Python would be a good choice, but the time it takes for me to understand a new language is blocking me from that.

Well, artists would disagree on that point, and I do agree with the artist. I do think ML at this current state and near future do have a limit. I can’t see ML doing anything complicated in 3D like a CAD automobile any time soon.