"inhahe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:... > >>It is not clear that the first (cheapest best) human->computer language >>is a computer language, though if two were orthonormal >in comparison >>to life, Python's fine. Not my first. > > The utterly dry, closed, logical, definitive, hierarchical, consistent, > determinate nature of a computer language is the only thing that will > facilitate anything useful on something as utterly stupid (and not to > mention logical, definite and determined) as a computer. > > I mean it, computers are /really/ stupid. They're literally > stupider than a bug. We just like things we can control. > > The requisites I have for a computer language are: > > Efficiency (speed) > Elegance of syntax > Powerful (conceptual-wise) abstractions > > Python has delicious abstractions that make doing a lot of things really > easy and fun to think about. > Stackless Python adds even more to that with continuations. > Also Python's dynamic (another aspect of being powerful conceptual-wise) > But most of all, I love its syntax. Guido is the awesome. > (BTW, I won't even use any language that uses := for assignment. I just > refuse. I don't care what the language has.) > > The speed/efficiency issue depends on the task at hand. For most things I > use Python. But assembly isn't out of the question, and it's fun to code > in. I also find C/C++ an elegant language. Most things just don't need > that speed. And Python is 50 times easier to code in than C/C++ and 1000 > times easier to debug in. > > I also like C#. > > My ideal language would be a natively compiling cross between C++ and > Python. Objects declared with a type would be statically typed, objects > not declared with a type would be dynamically typed. There would also be > keywords to declare that class names won't be reassigned and class > attributes won't be deleted. Those attributes would be referred to by > offset, not hast table keys. f
hast = hash -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
