Fernando schrieb:
The real problem with Python is that it has been very successful as a
scripting language in the static-typing/C/C++ world. Those
programmers, instead of adapting their evil ways to Python, and
realizing the advantages of a dynamic language, are influencing
Python's design and forcing it into the static-typing mold.
Examples?
Python is going the C++ way: piling feature upon feature, adding bells
and whistles while ignoring or damaging its core design.
What is core design? What are bells and whistles? I find it surprising
that you talk about adding bells and whistles, whereas the URL you are
referring to is about removing features.
The new 'perlified' syntax for decorators, the new static type bonds
and the weird decision to kill lambda instead of fixing it are good
examples that show that Python is going the wrong way.
I don't think that the introduction of '@' for decorators justifies
the term perlification. If special characters are avoided at all costs
Python could become too verbose like Java which is often critized for
that in c.l.py.
What used to be a cool language will soon be an interpreted C/C++
without any redeeming value. A real pity...
What do you mean with cool? Which parts of Python are C/C++ish? Which
features leave Python "without any redeeming value"? This phrase
is close to trolling because is vague, emotional and unspecific.
The fear of the anti-static fanatics is unfounded. Guido has made
clear that he is thinking of a pychecker-like mechanism for
validating programs at compile time. There's nothing wrong with
defining interfaces and conditions and being able to check them
before actually running the program.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel +49-241-93878-0
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\n'.decode('base64')
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
