One could hope, but any library abusing kwargs in all their methods is showing they’re willing to go through the absolute minimum to make their code usable, let alone readable and self-documenting.
It's a tiny hope. But a hope nonetheless. Fortran is fun.
Also, do you prefer a specific version of Fortran, or is the latest one fine?
You can read more about the language and its high-level features here: https://fortran-lang.org
That website/community was created in part by the original author of the Python Sympy library, Ondřej Čertík. He is also working on his own Fortran compiler that you can use via webassembly to play around with Fortran; find links if you want to play here: https://lfortran.org
I've only dabbled a little, but I like the general idea, and I appreciate a F/OSS Fortran compiler being developed like this alongside actively seeking to grow the Fortran community & push the language & its libraries forward.
I expect more widespread adoption of Fortran to be quite a ways out, but what Ondřej is doing for Fortran is necessary (not sufficient) for such adoption to be the case.
[1] Is Fortran easier to optimize than C for heavy calculations?
Fortran has also added support for e.g. object-oriented programming, pure functions (no side effects for better optimization), and pointers. So idiomatic modern Fortran code looks very different from the “Fortran 77” code that many people might think of when they hear the name :).
The next step is Idris, where you define starting and desired type and start interactive shell to figure out right way to get there.
However....
Nim is unlikely to go mainstream. It's not the next Rust and not for technical reasons.
Julia won't budge Python out of the top slot anytime soon, although it should in many scenarios past simple scripting.
The Azure SDK is full of them, making liberal use of kwargs.pop. What a nightmare.
At first I was kinda giggling. But actually there are such things, if the Mapping is also ordered.
LRU cache, trees, tries… and—oh wait—all CPython dicts are ordered these days!
(Honestly I have only used the modern ordered-nature of `dict` for serialization to versioned or human-editable files. But why not an algorithm with a “`stackdict`” I guess?)
Naked kwargs is so difficult to work with that I hesitate to think of a use case where it wouldn’t be an anti pattern.
Preferable for whom? I do not prefer it. I much prefer to avoid the extra work it creates for me vs. the simplicity of kwargs. I use explicit args for the function I made and then add *kwargs on the end and then I don't have to write bespoke config objects or copy and paste a bunch of stuff that might be obsolete by a future update to some library and also pollute my function's signature. I would very much welcome a way to tell callers where kwargs is going without having to do extra work.
For code with many users, creating a few extra minutes of work for one dev is preferable when the alternative would be every dev who uses that code has to spend that same extra work and then some to grok what exactly is going on with the method signatures. Being explicit also creates traceable code, in that you can search a keyword to find everywhere it’s used or passed rather than tracing methods where it might be used.
I can promise very few users would be thankful for the elegance and minimalism of args/kwargs when they’re source-diving trying to figure out how to get some basic functionality to work.
Looking at it another way, the hunk of code in charge of serializing your message does not care one whit about the innards of each message, and making it become aware would add tremendous complexity with no real value.