> On 4/05/2010, at 1:06 AM, Chris Rebert wrote: >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:29 AM, Chris Rebert <c...@rebertia.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Samuel Williams >>> <space.ship.travel...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> >>>> In particular, "Why would I learn this language?" section needs to have a >>>> few paragraphs. I don't use Python predominantly so I hoped that you could >>>> provide the main reasons why Python is a language someone would want to >>>> learn about. >> <snip> >>> - A very clean syntax and elegant design, compared to other languages >> >> Also, I take issue with your classifying Python as orange with regard >> to "Is the general syntax simple and concise?" on >> http://programming.dojo.net.nz/resources/programming-language-comparison/index >> Python's syntax is at least as simple, if not simpler, than Ruby's, >> which you rate as green. Ruby may be /slightly/ more concise than >> Python in certain cases due to its Perl influences, but those >> instances of specialized syntax also make it more complex. >> To wit, I refer you to >> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dyugd_KlqvcJ:blog.nicksieger.com/articles/2006/10/27/visualization-of-rubys-grammar+ruby+grammar+visualization&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us >> Note the complexity of the graph for Ruby's grammar. By comparison, >> here is the same graph for Python (generated from a file linked to in >> the post's comment thread): >> http://rebertia.com/images/python_grammar_graph.png >> (Disclaimer: Neither of the graphs are current.) >> >> Additionally, you rate Python orange but Perl green for "Does the >> language provide a useful and consistent set of object oriented >> constructs?". Could you explain your reasoning for this? While neither >> Python nor Perl have the level of object-oriented purity of Ruby or >> Smalltalk, my understanding is that short of using CPAN libraries for >> Perl or dealing in Perl 6, Perl and Python have a substantially >> similar object model, so I don't how Python could rate below Perl in >> this area. On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Samuel Williams <space.ship.travel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Chris, > > Thanks for reading further into the site. > > Yes, it is complicated to provide a good comparison. It isn't always accurate > and I welcome feedback. > > Please be aware that orange does not mean problem - it simply means take note > that there may be potential issues that you need to consider. It is highly > subjective, so I appreciate your feedback. The red dot is when there is > definitely an issue that needs to be taken into consideration. It isn't > "Okay, Warning, Error" because it isn't possible to make this kind of > judgement without being omnipotent. > > There are several reason why I decided to rate the syntax as not being simple. > 1) Indentation model is not appreciated by everyone - I think its a > good model, but feedback from some other people has been that they don't like > it. Also, I've had perfectly good Python code fall to bits after editing in a > different editor. I'm not saying that this was the fault of Python, but in an > educational context it might be a problem, since people are fairly limited > and don't understand these issues. > 2) I don't think that the list comprehension integrates well with the > rest of the language. It is an additional syntactic construct which seems to > be separate from the rest of the language. It would be nice if list > comprehension was implemented in a way that was more general, using a general > closure syntax for example. This is just my opinion, and it might not be > valid (I don't research this point very heavily). > > I appreciate that in general the Python syntax is good and concise. It is > hard. Some teacher might want to consider these issues more carefully. Do you > think I should change that spot to green? I don't have a problem with doing > that, as long as it makes sense.
Yes, I do think it ought to be green, though I admit I'm not unbiased on this. I will point out that (1) does not seem related to "simplicity and conciseness", which is what that row in the comparison claims to be about. > With regards to Perl, yes, this is probably something I need to investigate > further. It is not always easy to do a comparison of this nature. From my > experience, Perl generally seems to have a robust object model that is > consistently implemented (even if the syntax is pretty wonky at times). > However, in a sense, it is no better or worse than Python implementation... > so why is it green dot? Do you think I should change Perl to orange or Python > to green. I'm unsure, but in either case, at least based on my limited knowledge of Perl 5, it again seems rather strange for Python & Perl to not be rated approximately the same in this area (if anything, I'd think Perl might be slightly worse off due to its syntax; but again, I'm not unbiased and my Perl knowledge is limited). Cheers, Chris -- Avoid "top-posting" (google it) http://blog.rebertia.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
