On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: > "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.
Yes I meant "bear" - bite me. I never did say that python -is- suitable for all applications or that all languages are suitable for all purposes. However, (others that are) claiming that Python -is not- suitable because python does not have XYZ feature is equally as foolish. Who's to say that Python is not just as suitable for the systems on-board a Boeing-747 then C++ ? --JamesMills -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
