I never thought I'd be saying this but welcome back Rick :)
On 11/11/2013 06:50, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 6:42:04 AM UTC-6, Steven
D'Aprano wrote:
Uses an example written in Ruby, but don't
let that put you off:
Why would it? I write Ruby code all the time. Ruby code in
and of itself does not bother me, what bothers me about Ruby
is the ease at which a programmer can write inconsistent and
convoluted code -- evidenced by the poor examples in your
linked article. Case in point.
To save anyone else from reading this long-winded "blab
fest" chalk full the driest humor and "cyclic illogical
meandering" that could make a ferris-wheel blush with
jealousy...
In a nutshell the author attempts to plead for the
"longevity" of "old code bases" simply on the basis of his
assertion that "old code bases" are "less buggy" and
contain more "wisdom" than their new brethren -- both of
which are absurd conclusions!
I recall that the demise of Netscape was due to them trying to
completely rewrite code of this nature. The exception that proves the rule?
--
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
