I think that "{true} if {cond} else {false}" is quite an unnatural and confusing construct, especially when you attempt to nest them. Although I'm not really familiar with Python I thought that was concatenating 'FizzBuzz' with the value of some nested ternary expression and only realised the order was inverted when I tried to parse the inner one.

The vast majority of conditionals in languages I know follow the {cond} {true} {false} order: IIf({cond}, {true}, {false}) in VB, SQL, and spreadsheets; if({cond}) {true} else {false} and ternary {cond}?{true}:{false} in C and C-derived languages; (if {cond} {true} {false}) in the Lisp family; if {cond} then {true} else {false} in ALGOL/Pascal, etc. There's probably a reason for this order, as seeing a condition in the middle of an expression feels surprising and unexpected.

Python does the same, but it has a 1-line version of conditionals that is what the parent uses. Many Python programmers enjoy 1-liners, but I think once you start adding else statements to them they become unreadable.

The OP's characterization is reasonably accurate in my experience. I've run into several Python programmers who didn't actually know about Python's special "if expression" syntax.

Moreover, the code you've presented here certainly isn't idiomatic, which counts for something.

sure, but when you're implicitly comparing code segments (by placing them next to each other), you should at least make the effort to make them more the same, instead of pointing out that one language is missing a feature used in the other language, especially when this claim is false.

the formatting can of course be improved:

    for i in range(1, 101):
        print('FizzBuzz' if i % 15 == 0 else
              'Buzz' if i % 5 == 0 else
              'Fizz' if i % 3 == 0 else
              i)

there's also a suspicious "return" at the end of the second code segment which mysteriously appeared some time after the first one; looks like the author was trying a little too hard to differentiate python and rust.

I disagree. I think code comparisons should be done using idiomatic code. I personally would not consider chaining `if` expressions like you've done here idiomatic Python.

and yet people write:

    let result = if i % 15 == 0 {
        "FizzBuzz"
    } else if i % 5 == 0 {
        "Buzz"
    } else if i % 3 == 0 {
        "Fizz"
    } else {
        i
    };

in rust? either this is good, readable code or this is poorly written, unintelligible code. you cannot make the argument that sometimes it is readable and sometimes not based on the presence of braces.

The comparison is not "readable", it is "idiomatic". (I'm not saying either is unreadable, just pointing out that you're attacking the wrong thing.)

Using `if .. else if .. else` in Rust as an expression is absolutely idiomatic.

I don't see a problem with code chosen for each example. What is a problem is explicitly stating that python doesn't have such functionality.

Yes. I responded to this initially above.

yeah, no one writes python like this.

I've seen it quite frequently and kindof like it because it doesn't introduce any state that could leak out or get mutated from somewhere else. Although the ternary operator doesn't make as much sense in python as in other languages since there is no const keyword, otherwise that's what the ternary operator is usually used for.

I've only ever seen it non-nested.

I’ve certainly written `a if b else c if d else e` before, and it reads perfectly naturally—but you do want to be careful doing such things. They’re very easy to overuse.