On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Kiuhnm <kiuhnm03.4t.yahoo...@mail.python.org> wrote: > If I and my group of programmers devised a good and concise syntax and > semantics to describe some applicative domain, then we would want to > translate that into the language we use. > Unfortunately, Python doesn't let you do that.
No, this is not unfortunate. Python does certain things and does them competently. If Python doesn't let you write what you want the way you want, then you do not want Python. This is not an insult to Python, nor is it a cop-out whereby the Python Cabal tells you to shut up and go away, you aren't doing things the Proper Way, you need to change your thinking to be more in line with Correct Syntax. It is simply a reflection of the nature of languages. If I want to write a massively-parallel program that can be divided across any number of computers around the world, Python isn't the best thing to use. If I want to write a MUD with efficient reloading of code on command, Python isn't the best thing to use. If I want to write a device driver, Python isn't the best thing to use. If I want to write a simple script that does exactly what it should and didn't take me long to write, then Python quite likely IS the best thing to use. But whatever you do, play to the strengths of the language you use, don't play to its weaknesses. Don't complain when C leaks the memory that you forgot to free(), don't bemoan LISP's extreme parenthesizing, don't fight the Python object model. You'll only hurt yourself. In any case, you know where to find Ruby any time you want it. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
