Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jeff Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> One great thing about C is that
>> a programmer can realistically hope to know the entire language
>> definition; maybe Guido would like the same to be true of Python.
>
> C is horrendously complicated, with zillions of obscure traps. C++ is
> even worse;
Who feeds you this stuff?
> there's actually a published book specifically about C++
> pitfalls.
Mercy, a whole book?
My current favorite book of language-specific pitfalls:
http://www.javapuzzlers.com/
Wait a few years. A Python Puzzlers book will surely be on the shelves
eventually. Here are some of the top results when Googling "python
pitfalls:"
http://zephyrfalcon.org/labs/python_pitfalls.html
http://evanjones.ca/python-pitfall-scope.html
Maybe C++ needs better pub. The guy who wrote the first of those
articles says elswhere on his web site:
"My Python pitfalls article seems to be a popular read. It's
written from a somewhat negative viewpoint: things that can go
wrong. (Of course, that's useful; you're never going to do these
things wrong again. Right? ;-) To counter-balance this, I think
there should an article with a more positive viewpoint as well.
So I was wondering, if I could collect 10 "anti-pitfalls"; parts
of the Python language that are especially clever, elegant and
intuitive."
Good luck with that. Once language Y comes along, there will be a
million reasons people believe that language X was downright unusable.
> Python is underspecified but freer of weird hazards in
> practice.
>
> C and C++ should practically be outlawed at this point.
On what grounds? "I don't approve of the programming language you're
using. Cease and desist. Nyah!"
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
