Looking at code. Came to a 20-line block of code that did exactly this.
Twenty lines. Seriously.
To be fair, 8 of the 20 lines were comments. 3 were blank. Which leaves 9 lines of code to perform the task of a one-liner.
I often say "no one wins at code golf" as a way to talk people out of trying to minimize Python code into vanishingly small black holes where no information about the code's design escapes.
However. Blowing a line of code into 9 lines seems to be just as bad.
I'll spare you the 9 lines. I will say this, though, the author was blissfully ignorant that
Path objects are comparable. So. There were needless conversions. And. Even after commenting on this, they seemed to somehow feel (without evidence of any kind) that
Path objects were incomparable.
This is not the first time I've seen folks who like assembler-style code. There is at most one state-change or attribute reference on each line of code. The code has a very voluble verticality (VVV™).
This seems as wrong as code golf. Neither style provides meaningful code.
How can we measure "meaningful"?
Of the 8 lines of comments, the English summary, the "reverse alphabetic order" phrase is only a few words. Therefore, the matching code can be an equally terse few symbols. I think code can parallel natural language.