James Mills <prolo...@shortcircuit.net.au> writes: > >> Actually - in case you are perfectly unaware - programming > >> languages -do not- bare meaning to such systems nor have > >> an impact on their suitability or unsuitability. > > > > Er, who do you think you are trying to fool, saying things like that? > > Maybe just yourself. > > Paul unless you can prove otherwise, refuting my statement > is useless. Claiming that Python may or may not be suitable > for safety critical systems or large scale systems is unfounded.
"Programming languages -do not- bare meaning to such systems nor have an impact on their suitability or unsuitability" (I presume you mean "bear" not "bare") is a far stronger and stupider statement than one about Python's suitability or lack thereof. Most informed users would agree that Python is more suitable than some languages for that sort of application and less suitable than others. Only a fool would propose that all languages are equally suitable. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
