On Jun 10, 4:52 pm, Dietmar Schwertberger <n...@schwertberger.de> wrote: > Am 10.06.2012 08:16, schrieb rusi:> This is worth a read in this > context:http://osteele.com/archives/2004/11/ides >
> > I've read the article. It presents some nice ideas, but probably the > author has not used Python before. > Otherwise he would have noticed that the overall productivity does not > only depend on language and IDE/editor, but on the complete environment > which in the case of Python includes the ability to use the interpreter > interactively. For many tasks that's a major productivity boost. > But that's a point that many people don't see because their current > language like C# or Java does not have an interpreter and when they > just look at the syntax, the find "there's not enough improvement to > switch". Full agreement here > > Also, I'm not sure whether the author counts the libraries as language > or tool feature. In my opinion the environment and the libraries should > be listed on their own in such an article. Libraries are developed > after the language, but usually they are ahead of the other tools/IDEs. That was my main point and the reason for referring to that article. If I may rephrase your points in OSteele's terminology: If python is really a "language maven's" language then it does not do very well: - its not as object-oriented as Ruby (or other arcana like Eiffel) - its not as functional as Haskell - its not as integrable as Lua - its not as close-to-bare-metal as C - etc Then why is it up-there among our most popular languages? Because of the 'batteries included.' And not having a good gui-builder is a battery (cell?) that is lacking. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
