Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > 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.
I'm not going to argue, because I'm tired of arguing. But I think you're SeriouslyMistaken(tm). > 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. Yes. These "jokes" don't strike me as friendly, though. They strike me as ignorant and hostile. > 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. Both of which I disagree with. I don't see how the same brain can believe it's much harder to do good things, yet much easier to do bad things, in the same language. > 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. C++ does provide some run-time type-checking, whereas Python offers virtually no static type-checking. Clearly, C++ does not natively have a run-time environment as powerful as Python's, and that's one of the primary reasons to use Python. If you need a heavyweight runtime environment available from C++, you have to provide one. This is a direct consequence of early design decisions intended to make C++ competitive with C. I have yet to see a runtime-heavy C++ library I really like, whereas Python, Ruby, and Java all have fantastic sets of run-time facilities. > 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's OK. :) I really do feel that way, though. Call me a dork. >> 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. Aha! Now we're getting somewhere! >> 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. They can get their jobs done with C++ without much pain, too, given even a little bit of decent guidance. It's true that you *can* shoot yourself in the foot with C++, but you kind of have to work at it. (One good way is to write C code, and think it's C++.) >> 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. OK... >> 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. It's not abuse. It's meaningful and compact. The $scalars are intuitive to anybody who has ever written a shell script, the @arrays are immediately recognizable... I agree it takes some getting used to, but then it becomes clear as day. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
