Jeff Schwab a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> Carl Banks a écrit : >>> On Feb 20, 8:58 am, Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> You Used Python to Write WHAT? >>>>> http://www.cio.com/article/185350 >>>> """ >>>> Furthermore, the power and expressivity that Python offers means >>>> that it may require more skilled developers. >>>> [...down to the summary...] >>>> Python may not be an appropriate choice if you: >>>> [...] >>>> * Rely on teams of less-experienced programmers. These >>>> developers may benefit from the wider availability of training >>>> for languages like Java and are less likely to make mistakes with >>>> a compile-time, type-checked language. >>>> """ >>>> >> (snip) >>> >>> C++ is a compile-time, type-checked language, which means it is >>> totally safer for newbies than Python. Yep, your big company is >>> totally safe with newbie C++ programmers. >>> >> >> Mouarf ! Brillant demonstration, thanks Carl !-) >> >> (and BTW, +1 QOTW) > > > NB: This is not a troll. (Please, nobody try to be cute with a "yes it > is" reply.)
NB : standard disclaimer about all the following being MVHO. > c.l.python seem to be about the most close-minded of any of the > currently popular language-specific news groups. May I suggest you take a tour on c.l.lisp then ?-) > It's just taken for > granted that Perl and C++, two of my personal favorite things in this > world, inherently favor ugly, buggy code. I wouldn't say so. It's a fact that C++ is a really complex language with quite a lot of room for BigMistakes(tm), and that there's something like a 'my-code-is-more-cryptic-than-yours' culture in Perl. You cannot seriously argue on this. Now this has nothing to do with the respective merits of both languages (FWIW, Perl, as a 'Practical Extracting and Reporting Language', beats any other language I know pants down), and I'd be sorry if you were to confuse what is mostly on the friendly jokes side with mere bashing. You may not have noticed, but quite a lot of people here have a working experience with either C++ and/or Perl. As for my above comment, it doesn't imply anything else than the fact that C++ is way harder to learn than Python (or Ruby etc...), and that bugs in C++ code are likely to have way more nasty results. The joke is not "against" C++, but about people asserting than static type checking is safer than dynamic type checking without realizing that what is really important is*runtime type checking - something C++ doesn't provide. NB : As a side note, and while being myself a bit passionated when it comes to languages and my job in general, I would not go as far as labelling any language or technology as "one of my favorite things in this world". > That is the farthest thing > from the truth as I see it. You can (and plenty of people will) write > terrible code in any language, including Python. Indeed. Bad coders write bad code, period. And I think we've all been bad coders one day, and that we're all still bad coders sometimes. > To use Python effectively, you have to know something about how it > works, and the same is true of Perl and C++. And of any other language. Now a decent C++ or Perl programmer can be proficient in Python in a couple weeks and become a master within a year at worst. And it seems that non-professional, occasional programmers (hobbyists, gamers, scientists, and any other kind of power user) are able to get their job done in Python without much pain. > But a newbie who's > learning from a decent source (avoid the "C++ for Morons" style books) > is likely (I contend) to be writing semi-useful programs about as fast > as with Python, and to be writing heavy-duty work-horse programs far > sooner. Sorry but I don't buy this. > Perl is, and always has been, a language for getting your job done; when > everything else failed, Perl and C++ got me through some of the toughest > tasks of my life. Translating file formats, automating system-level > tasks... And now that the C++ standard library is getting regular > expressions, I can replace plenty of glued-together scripts with > single-language, cohesive applications. > > I like Python, and I think it's got a brilliant future ahead of it. It > is rapidly becoming the dynamic language of choice, especially for C++ > projects. I am glad that Python can be extended straightforwardly in > any C-linkable language. But this bashing of other powerful languages > on the basis that they're hard to read and hard to use correctly is, > frankly, nonsense. Stating the obvious is not bashing. In my last shop I was working with (very talented BTW) Perl programmer, and he was the first to make jokes on Perl's abuse of cryptic syntax. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
