First clear solution for The Most Numbers by madmanbob - python coding challenges

Enable Javascript in your browser and then refresh this page, for a much enhanced experience.

First solution in Clear category for The Most Numbers by madmanbob

def checkio(*args):
    return max(args) - min(args) if args else 0

Feb. 20, 2014

Comments:

Grimtyler on March 3, 2014, 12:15 a.m.
Any solution that does not include rounding of the result returned does not work in all cases. the question request that the result should be checked with a 0.001 precision so if you return a result with more than 3 decimal places your code will not work for all cases. Your code will work on the test cases because the answers to the test cases don't have more that the 3 decimal places. Please let me know if I am wrong and I will happily retract this comment apologize and vote up your code (I am very new to programming <1 month).

maurice.makaay on Nov. 3, 2014, 7:36 a.m.
The problem description clearly talks about checking the result, not about expecting a rounded result in the first place. So I guess you owe madmanbob a vote here, unless you already did.

bryukh on March 3, 2014, 12:45 a.m.
No. Even if you return 0.0015 instead 0.001. then it's correct. Because results are checked as +-0.001. You can this way in the unit testing when compare float numbers (<a href="http://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/floatingpoint.html">to solve this problem</a>)

codeM0nk3y on June 1, 2014, 2:43 a.m.
cool. I did not know you could use max() and min() on tuples. I did not even know what a tuple was before the day before yesterday :)

madmanbob on June 1, 2014, 8:12 a.m.
Indeed. You can use them on any iterable, as long as the contents are comparable with one another. If you give it the key argument as well, you don't even need to directly compare them. For example, inequalities make no sense between complex numbers, but <pre class='brush: python'>max([1, 2j, -3, -4j], key = lambda x: abs(x)) </pre> returns <pre class='brush: python'>-4j </pre> which is the number, of those I gave it, with the largest value of abs(x)

StefanPochmann on April 13, 2015, 2:46 p.m.
Why not just <pre class='brush: python'>key=abs </pre> ?

madmanbob on April 14, 2015, 1:13 p.m.
I was emphasizing that you can use lambda functions as the key. Yours is better in actual code, as it is more concise, but I feel that mine is a better example for people who are just being introduced to the idea.

veky on May 2, 2015, 11:56 p.m.
You meant, you can use inplace "functions" (callables, in fact) as key (you don't need to define them anywhere else). For that, you can use in-scope names of functions defined elsewhere (for example, builtins), or you can construct callables using higher-order objects (for example, functools.partial), or via descriptors (for example, int.__add__), or you can build a function from expression using a lambda. The point is, lambda is not the only inplace callable - in fact, it is in some sense the ugliest one, and hardest to get right.

giolefpaceid on Oct. 11, 2014, 7:51 p.m.
Exactly the same! :)

sabareeshk on Dec. 11, 2014, 10:46 a.m.
nice one..

GabeNewell on Dec. 12, 2014, 3:41 p.m.
Did exactly the same but with "()" around the code after "return" :)

veky on Oct. 18, 2017, 6:45 a.m.
Why? :-) `return` is a keyword. Do you also write <pre class='brush: python'>for (i) in [2, 3, 5]: while (i < 8): assert (2 < 3) raise (ValueError) except (Exception): with (open('afile.txt')): </pre> ?

knanasugi84 on Dec. 23, 2014, 9:04 a.m.
same :)

marshall.zheng on Dec. 24, 2014, 8:36 a.m.
great, concise

pbeesley on Jan. 13, 2015, 4 p.m.
Just curious why the float was introduced into the problem description but not a part of any of the solutions?

veky on May 2, 2015, 11:59 p.m.
Welcome to the world of duck typing. Here, writing programs that solve (in the typing sense) more general problem than the one set is considered a virtue. :-)

agalazka on Jan. 19, 2015, 7:50 p.m.
awesome and clean code, way better than my solution

HanleyWashington on Jan. 21, 2015, 8:56 p.m.
Very nice solution. Similar to mine (but better). I didn't know how to use <pre class='brush: python'>if args </pre> before seeing this.

awkiensin on July 6, 2015, 1:41 p.m.
One question here: what does the "if args" meaning? how this can check the Boolean of the args??

JestersGrind on July 13, 2015, 8:02 p.m.
My understanding is that all variables have a Boolean context. If it has data, it returns True. If it's empty, it returns False.

Czarinov on July 30, 2015, 8:11 p.m.
Empty or int 0.

PavloTaiko on July 13, 2015, 2:34 p.m.
elvis is the only reasonable solution here

PyPoet on Aug. 20, 2015, 3:53 p.m.
I really like the 'if args' concept in your code. Am I assuming correctly that '*args' is of <class list> and trying to unpack an empty list results in a 'False', thus triggering the 'else'?

veky on Sept. 27, 2017, 3:37 a.m.
You're not assuming correctly. First, args is <a href="https://py.checkio.org/mission/most-numbers/publications/madmanbob/python-3/first/share/8a85de8e0ad3050a09b55919df4fc35f/#comment-56103">not a list</a>*. But you're not the only one that got it wrong. :-) Second, noone is trying to unpack it. What is going on, is that `if` triggers the bool protocol, which asks for a length of the `args` tuple. Since it answers 0 to the question about length, it is considered false. Third, note the case difference. There are many false values besides False. `False` is just the canonical false value. :-) <hr /> * In fact, Python tries to guess whether you're going to need to mutate it. People usually don't need to mutate varargs, and it comes handy when implementing things like `functools.lru_cache`, so it is a tuple. [Of course, that doesn't really work for `**kwargs`, but that's another story.:] That gives you a nice conundrum: <pre class='brush: python'>>>> b = {1, 2} >>> *a, = b >>> a [1, 2] >>> a = *b, >>> a (1, 2) </pre> since when the starred thing is in the LHS, Python assumes you're going to mutate it afterwards.

M157q on Nov. 5, 2015, 7:37 a.m.
same :)

ducthinhdt on Nov. 15, 2015, 4:07 a.m.
same here

Dima128 on Dec. 23, 2015, 2:34 p.m.
Nice solution! But I just wonder. Does it Ok with PEP8?

maksimkovnir on Jan. 10, 2016, 9:50 p.m.
I have the same code, i think, this is the best solution)

mark1729 on June 21, 2016, 10:44 a.m.
This won't work if args is an empty list

DahliaSR on June 4, 2017, 5:28 p.m.
<blockquote> This won’t work if args is an empty list </blockquote> <pre class='brush: python'>return max(args) - min(args) if args else 0 ^^^^^^^ </pre> So it DOES work if args is empty.

StefanPochmann on Sept. 22, 2017, 11:45 a.m.
mark is right, it won’t work if args is an empty list.

veky on Sept. 22, 2017, 6:14 p.m.
... and demons will fly out of my nose if args is an empty list, too. Simply because args cannot be an empty list. :-)

DahliaSR on Sept. 22, 2017, 6:50 p.m.
o.Ô <pre class='brush: python'>>>> def checkio(*args): return max(args) - min(args) if args else 0 >>> checkio() 0 </pre>

StefanPochmann on Sept. 22, 2017, 7 p.m.
What's your point?

DahliaSR on Sept. 22, 2017, 7:16 p.m.
<blockquote> mark is right, it won’t work if args is an empty list. </blockquote> In my example, you can see that it does work if args is empty. Of course args is an empty tuple, but casting it to a list doesn't change the result. Or have you been thinking of something like this? <pre class='brush: python'>>>> checkio([]) </pre>

StefanPochmann on Sept. 22, 2017, 7:37 p.m.
<blockquote> In my example, you can see that it does work if args is empty. </blockquote> Yes. So? I never doubted that. <blockquote> Of course args is an empty tuple </blockquote> So you do understand half of my point. <blockquote> but casting it to a list doesn’t change the result. </blockquote> Don't know why you're saying that. <blockquote> Or have you been thinking of something like this? </blockquote> No.

DahliaSR on Sept. 22, 2017, 8 p.m.
If you never doubted that it works, when args empty, what is the point of your post – where your said: `mark is right, it won’t work if args is an empty list.`?

StefanPochmann on Sept. 22, 2017, 8:39 p.m.
Your initial comment sounded like you think mark's statement is wrong, particularly because you emphasized "DOES". I wanted to point out that it's not wrong.

DahliaSR on Sept. 22, 2017, 9:33 p.m.
Of course, mark's statement is wrong! He stated this solution would not work if args would be an empty list - or just empty - and that is WRONG, because the length of args is checked before using max() and min()

StefanPochmann on Sept. 22, 2017, 10:08 p.m.
No it's not wrong. Just like @veky's statement about those nose demons isn't wrong. You just need to learn some logic. It would be wrong if it indeed said "or just empty". But it doesn't. You made that up. Our conversation is similar to me saying "All my iPhones are broken" and you seeing all my phones being perfectly fine and replying "That's wrong, all your phones are perfectly FINE". I don't have any iPhones (only other phones), so my statement is correct. So while you're right about "all your phones are perfectly FINE", you're wrong about my statement being wrong. And frankly I don't understand why you brought up my phones at all, since my statement has absolutely nothing to do with them. (Example adapted <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth">from Wikipedia</a>.)

veky on Sept. 23, 2017, 6:52 a.m.
While we're speaking about them... All my smartphones are broken. :-/ :-D <hr /> P.S. Stefan, correct technical term is "nasal demons". Look it up. :-D

StefanPochmann on Sept. 23, 2017, 10:09 a.m.
Ok I did look it up. Wow, that was... unexpected.

DahliaSR on Sept. 23, 2017, 6:59 p.m.
<blockquote> No it’s not wrong. [...] It would be wrong if it indeed said "or just empty". But it doesn’t. You made that up. </blockquote> So if you want to take it literally: <pre class='brush: python'>>>> def checkio(*args): args = list(args) return max(args) - min(args) if args else 0 >>> checkio() 0 </pre> Now args is an empty list and the function still returns the correct result! So how can mark's statement be correct? And don' try to trick me, by saying that calling the function like this: <pre class='brush: python'>>>> checkio([]) </pre> would make his statement correct. You already said that you haven't thought about it that way. Citing @veky's statement about nasal demons, is like slapping yourself... There is a crucial difference, between @veky's statement and yours. He explained, why his statement is correct. You never did that. All you did was claiming that your statement is correct, but you never ever took the time to explain your point of view – before your last comment.

StefanPochmann on Sept. 23, 2017, 7:50 p.m.
Uh... now you made up that `args = list(args)`. That's not in the solution mark commented on. If you want to prove something wrong, you can't just change it to make it wrong. Yeah, I made it a little puzzle while @veky gave it away. And he did so right after me. So then there was no reason for me to say it, because he already had. And you upvoted his comment early on, so you had seen it, no? Though apparently you didn't understand it and still haven't, since you're still asking how mark's statement can be correct.

DahliaSR on Sept. 23, 2017, 8:49 p.m.
I'm strange? I'm not the one blaming somebody for not treating a statement the way it was made - literally: <blockquote> No it’s not wrong. […] It would be wrong if it indeed said "or just empty". But it doesn’t. You made that up. </blockquote> Mark - literally - said: '... if args is an empty list'! But in the solution, he commented on, args can never be an empty list. So I created a situation where args is an empty list - according to what mark literally said -, and the solution still returns the correct result, what - in my eyes - makes his statement wrong. And now you decided that taking it literally doesn't fit your point of view anymore: <blockquote> That’s not in the solution mark commented on. </blockquote> But if you can not accept this, then I can go ahead and take it even more literally - just like you wanted ... In the solution mark commented on, args can never be an empty list, and therefore his statement is wrong and so yours is wrong, too.

StefanPochmann on Sept. 23, 2017, 9:34 p.m.
<blockquote> Mark - literally - said: '… if args is an empty list’! </blockquote> Exactly! "empty list". Not "empty list or just empty". <blockquote> But in the solution, he commented on, args can never be an empty list. </blockquote> Exactly! <blockquote> So I created a situation where args is an empty list </blockquote> Exactly! You created that. Something the statement has nothing to do with and which is thus completely irrelevant. <blockquote> And now you decided that taking it literally doesn’t fit your point of view anymore: </blockquote> Wrong. You're the one changing things and thus not taking them literally. First you changed the statement itself, then you changed its subject. I'm the one actually taking things literally. (Or rather one of at least two, since @veky also did.) <blockquote> In the solution mark commented on, args can never be an empty list, and therefore his statement is wrong </blockquote> No, that's exactly what makes their statement correct. You really need to learn some logic.

DahliaSR on Sept. 23, 2017, 9:48 p.m.
Okay... then please explain, why mark's statement is correct!

StefanPochmann on Sept. 25, 2017, 8:52 p.m.
Me: "I'll buy you soup if you eat this sausage in 10 seconds." You: (... eating it in 12 seconds ...) Done! Get me that soup! Me: Sorry, you took 12 seconds. No soup for you. You: But you said you'll buy me soup if I eat that sausage in 10 seconds - or in just any time. Me: Uh, no, that's not what I said. You: You broke your promise! Me: Uh, no I didn't. You: (... grab a smaller sausage and eat it in 8 seconds ...) I ate it in 8 seconds! Get me that soup! Me: Sorry, that was a different sausage, not the one I referred to. No soup for you. You: You broke your promise! Me: Uh, no I didn't. You: Explain how you didn't break your promise! Me: Sigh...

DahliaSR on Sept. 27, 2017, 7:40 p.m.
Okay... to bring this to an end... I stated, that mark's comment is wrong and explained why I think it is wrong. You, insist that mark's statement is correct, but even though you have been asked to, you never explained your point of view. So you either can't explain your point of view or you just don't want to. All in all... Nothing but a statement without explanation and so it is absolutely worthless to me.

StefanPochmann on Sept. 27, 2017, 9:19 p.m.
You seriously think you deserve that soup? Though you didn't say anything about that. You just ignore it, like my previous explanation, and then pretend it's not there. After I had put quite a lot of effort into that. And you boldly stated "[veky] explained, why his statement is correct". Why do you accept his but not mine/mark's? It's the exact same principle! And veky didn't even explain the logic part at all, only the little Python part. mark made a claim under a condition. The condition is never met, so it never matters whether the claim is true. The statement as a whole is true. @veky, I'm giving up on Dahlia now. Just in case you feel like pitching in, you'd be very welcome to :-). Feel very welcome to correct me as well if I made mistakes, though I suspect you already would have.

veky on Sept. 28, 2017, 3:07 a.m.
Ah, you two are just a perfect example of why men and women never understand each other. :-D To one, the purpose of language is to connect people, and generate harmony -- to understand each other, so literalism is simply nuisance. To other, its purpose is to connect ideas, and generate arguments -- to convince each other, so literalism is essential. It will never work until at least one of you tries for a bit to look at the situation from the other's point of view. Stefan, what Dahlia is saying is that mark's sentence surely didn't put any weight on the word "list", but all of its focus was on the word "empty". And I think she's right. [We have, here on CiO, people thinking everything is, or at least should be:-P, a list, for a long time (I guess JS does that to people:). See <a href="https://py.checkio.org/mission/most-numbers/publications/madmanbob/python-3/first/share/8a85de8e0ad3050a09b55919df4fc35f/#comment-34424">this comment</a> for another example.] What's interesting, is that I even think that you think she's right in that assumption. And I even think that she thinks you know she's right, so you're just being a jerk. [See how ambiguity in language works in my favor? You don't know whether I insulted you in the last sentence, simply because English is not expressive enough. [How does that make you feel?](<a href="https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a497Pxm_700b.jpg):]">https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a497Pxm_700b.jpg):]</a> Dahlia, what Stefan is saying is that for a successful communication, you have to make sure you're actually communicating correctly. As long as you're relying on intuitive understanding, you're exposing yourself to a risk of not actually learning anything new (you saw it very well in that <a href="https://py.checkio.org/mission/long-repeat/publications/flpo/python-3/itertoolsgroupby/share/6576bd1ebcb5493dd35a95c9a493497e/#comment-55995">comment</a> about unpythonicity of LISPisms). And another thing: your intuition might be right, but it should be distributed fairly. If you understood correctly what mark meant to say, you surely could understand correctly what Stefan meant to say. Especially since you know that he is the greatest nitpick since David Hilbert. And Kurt Gödel. (Seriously, what's with those Germans?:))

StefanPochmann on Sept. 28, 2017, 7:51 p.m.
Yes, I do suspect that mark meant just "empty", although it's hard to believe because it's obvious that the solution does work then and because it's trivial to test. mark would have to have been unreasonably stupid and lazy. Anyway, I don't think that's what Dahlia is saying. Instead, she first missed or ignored the "list" or that it's not a list, and then after it was pointed out, she did take that part literally and tried all kinds of nonsense with it. Had she instead said that it probably wasn't meant, then I would've gladly and immediately agreed. I'd say I saw both points of view, and I wanted everybody to see both as well. About your insult/ambiguity thing: I don't care. Not about the possible insult because, well, I just don't. And thus it doesn't matter how it was meant, so I don't care about the ambiguity. I just disagree with your "English is not expressive enough". You could've easily expressed yourself unambiguously, you just chose not to. It's really the opposite - English is so expressive that it allowed you to express yourself ambiguously like that.

veky on Sept. 30, 2017, 5:53 a.m.
Well, always assuming other people are stupid simply because they disagree with you is not really a productive point of view. About mark: do you seriously believe that he meant the vacuous interpretation? Because if he didn't, the point about unreasonable stupidity and laziness isn't changed in any way. It might be "hard to believe" for you*, but the alternative explanation you constructed is so disconnected from reality that I'd dare say that even you don't really believe it. :-P [* It isn't hard to believe for me. And I think you're again reevaluating probabilities just to make your actions seem more reasonable that the others'. People do it all the time -- you recently did the similar thing when arguing with me about tie-breaking. Where would we arrive if we checked each of our assumptions meticulously every time we utter something?] <hr /> About Dahlia: this paragraph is just a fantastic example of the main difference in the communication style I pointed out above. Yes, she "missed or ignored" something, because it wasn't important. We all filter irrelevant details from the world all the time. We only differ (and even that maybe only 5% of the time) about what exactly we consider irrelevant. And when she interpreted (again, correctly) your actions as just "being a nitpick", she tried being a nitpick back to you. It didn't really work because you are immensely more experienced about being a nitpick than her:-P, but she at least tried to communicate in your style. [I think the same cannot be said about you, at least in this discussion.] Because, how could she know that you'll interpret even the "it" in the mark's comment to refer to "the solution as a whole", instead of just "the function body"? Many times people view the "solution template" as simply given, not something that's part of the work of the solver. (<a href="https://py.checkio.org/mission/non-unique-elements/publications/veky/python-3/shortest/share/6e3291603834bb924b10feb1a3725be5/#comment-55619">A recent example</a>.) [And even in that interpretation, I don't think you're so universally right, because of that verb "work". Not once, you've interpreted "correct solution" to mean "passes all tests existing at the moment of checking" (instead of "would pass all reasonable tests appropriate for the mission and satisfying the precondition"). Doesn't the mark's "won't work" deserve the same treatment?] <blockquote> Had she instead said that it probably wasn’t meant, then I would’ve gladly and immediately agreed. </blockquote> But she did! Yes, in an implicit manner, but you also expressed your views very implicitly. (Because it's much funnier that way, I grant that.) Look: <blockquote> He stated this solution would not work if args would be an empty list - or just empty - </blockquote> What do you think the emdashed insert meant? To me, it's obvious that it has the same purpose as brackets when quoting someone -- that is, bringing the quote more to the context where it will be interpreted, in the good faith that it preserves the intended meaning. Interpreting that "or" as a Boolean connective and completely disregarding the dashes is as meaningful as <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3psou7/why_are_people_answering_yes_to_x_or_y_questions/">this phenomenon</a> -- that is, funny for a first few times, then just annoying. <hr /> About insult: you're probably right about not caring. It was just a weak attempt to make you care about ambiguity, and it was weak precisely because the context wasn't artificially constructed, it just happened (see below). About ambiguity: ah, if it only were that simple. If you get immediate email notifications, you can see that my original comment didn't have that part at all. Only on rereading, I realized the comma is not an adequate substitute for hierarchical grouping that's usually expressed using parentheses in programming languages. It's possible that my knowledge of English is insufficient, but I really think that here the most obvious way of saying what I wanted to say really is ambiguous. Yes, you can always circumlocute, you can even locally redefine things to suit your needs ("In the following sentence I use parentheses for grouping, instead of their usual grammatical usage."), but that's about the same as saying PHP is expressive since you can write Python interpreter in it. :-P

StefanPochmann on Sept. 30, 2017, 9:47 a.m.
<blockquote> always assuming other people are stupid simply because they disagree with you </blockquote> I don't. I think I never do. And I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I called hypothetical mark stupid/lazy for ignoring the "if args else 0" and for not testing the solution. <blockquote> About mark: do you seriously believe that he meant the vacuous interpretation? </blockquote> Huh? No. I said "I do suspect that mark meant just "empty"". <blockquote> how could she know that you’ll interpret even the “it” in the mark’s comment to refer to "the solution as a whole", instead of just "the function body"? </blockquote> Easy. If just the function body, then I of course wouldn't have said that mark is right in the first place. Also, you immediately pointed out that "args cannot be an empty list" in your explanation that Dahlia likes so much, and that wouldn't be true if it were just about the function body. <blockquote> <blockquote> He stated this solution would not work if args would be an empty list - or just empty - What do you think the emdashed insert meant? </blockquote> </blockquote> I think that's irrelevant for this. She said "He stated", not "He meant". What she said there doesn't mean that mark meant it that way. What she said there is just wrong.

veky on Oct. 2, 2017, 6:37 a.m.
I think we have reached a fixpoint. I tried to explain to you that people might have different styles of communication, you keep saying "but they are just wrong". Of course they are wrong if the only criteria you'll accept is your own values. And "they could easily know what I meant, even while trying to prove me wrong, because otherwise I wouldn't be right, and I'm always right" is just mind-blowing even for me. :-D

veky on Sept. 24, 2017, 7:30 p.m.
Yeah, that's a big difference between Stefan and me. And IMNSHO, I think it's awesome that CiO has both of us. :-P (Not the least because I'm not the most hated guy around here anymore.;))

StefanPochmann on Sept. 25, 2017, 9:03 p.m.
Well, judging by the conversation I'd say your explanation didn't really make a difference, let alone a crucial or big one. And you are the most hated guy around here if I'm just your sockpuppet account.

veky on Sept. 26, 2017, 5:31 a.m.
I was pointing to a difference in character, not in purpose. :-) <hr /> Sockpuppet? Strangely, that never occured to me. :-) But of course, that's exactly what I would say if you were my sockpuppet account. :-] (Of course, your comment above would not be what you would say if you were my SPA. But you saying stupid things and me exposing the errors in your posts is kinda the purpose of SPA, so...:)) I guess some admin could confirm that you regularly access CiO from somewhere in Germany, while I usually access it from Croatia... but that would probably convince noone. In the worst case, people would just assume that oduvan is my sockpuppet account too. :-DD I guess the best counterargument is this: I regularly don't have time even to answer all the comments directed to me on CiO. :-o :-P

StefanPochmann on Sept. 26, 2017, 8:24 a.m.
Hmm, I thought you have too much time... several times recently I've seen you respond to a comment that was made like three years ago by someone who hasn't been been here for about as long. Made me wonder how you even find those.

veky on Sept. 26, 2017, 9:32 a.m.
People like them, usually. Or they like something in the vicinity, and then I procrastinate what I should actually be doing by reading the entire discussion. :-)

DahliaSR on June 4, 2017, 5:33 p.m.
A bit too complex I think. max() and min() both do have a guarantied time complexity of O(n), while for sorted() O(n) is the worst case time complexity. In average and best case sorted() takes O(n * log n) only.

veky on Sept. 22, 2017, 7:58 a.m.
<blockquote> for sorted() O(n) is the worst case time complexity. best case sorted() takes O(n * log n) </blockquote> Erm... wat? :-o

DahliaSR on Sept. 22, 2017, 6:59 p.m.
Holy crap... I posted that 3 months ago and nobody noticed it till now. facepalm I will fix the post, so it makes sense and that means I will remove it.

Pavel_Mazanik on Aug. 10, 2017, 3:32 p.m.
Is it works with checkio(10.2, 5.2)?

veky on Sept. 22, 2017, 8:25 p.m.
Why wouldn't it?

fpaguru on Oct. 24, 2017, 3:52 p.m.
elegant solution. Thanks!

katharina.noreia on Feb. 26, 2020, 12:23 p.m.
Wow, this is great

lxf42 on Feb. 26, 2022, 9:33 a.m.
My code is exactly the same.

Ice Base

0 %

PyCharm The Python IDE for Professional Developers. Enjoy productive Python, web and scientific development with PyCharm. Download it now!