On Jun 10, 11:05 pm, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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) if it were object-oreiented as Ruby, then why not use Ruby?
> - its not as functional as Haskell if it were as functional as Haskell, then why not use Haskell? > - its not as integrable as Lua if it were as integrable as Lua, then why not use Lua? > - its not as close-to-bare-metal as C if it were as asinine as C, then why not use C? > - etc exactly! > Then why is it up-there among our most popular languages? Because of > the 'batteries included.' No. It's up there because it does not FORCE you to program in a single paradigm. Look. I love OOP. It works well for so many problems -- but not for ALL problems! I like the freedom i have when using Python. I don't get that feeling anywhere else. > And not having a good gui-builder is a battery (cell?) that is > lacking. Nonsense. I'm not saying we should NEVER have a visual gui builder, no, but i am saying that we don't need one to be a great language. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
