Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hallöchen!
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Torsten Bronger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> [...]
>>> I'm interested in a language with a big community. This is my
>>> definition of success. [...]
>>>
>>> GUI applications seem to be the most attractive application type.
>>> This is not only true for commercial programming. When I look at
>>> the most agile projects on Sourceforge, almost all of them have a
>>> GUI.
>> Why restrict yourself to agile projects?
> Because such projects attract the greatest number of developers,
> many of them being amongst the most diligent developers, too. I
> expect this to have a positive influence of the language.
You didn't answer the question about how you define agile
project. Please do so if you expect a comment on this.
>> I won't argue that most of the projects on Sourceforge have GUIs -
>> that's certainly true. I will argue that most of the projects are
>> done in languages that aren't what you call GUI-aware.
> Yes, this is what I meant with "legacy code". C and C++ are
> actually special-purpose. They are good for controlling a computer
> but not for implementing an idea. Their current vitality on almost
> all software areas arise from the fact that they had been extremely
> successful before Java, C#, and VB came into play. Invented today,
> they would be niche languages.
This is patently absurd. C and C++ were born as general-purpose
languages. Changing the environment around them isn't going to change
that.
> However, even C++ is really successful only when used as a GUI-aware
> dialect. Additionally, Python does not have this legacy bonus.
The only dialect that might be considered "GUI-aware" is C#. Or maybe
you mean they're only succesfull when coupled with a GUI library? I'd
say that's due to your warped definition of success, and I'm not going
to argue with your definition.
>>> Therefore, GUI-aware languages attract much larger user bases,
>>> and so they cater my definition of being successful.
>> Since you haven't stated what that definition is, I can't really say
>> anything about this.
> Yes, I did.
No, you agreed with my definition, with the proviso that you had to
consider how "important" the application area was. Which leaves it
undefined.
>>> Legacy code is not a sign of success IMO because it implies a
>>> difficult future.
>> So you're saying that Python, Perl, Linux, the various BSD
>> et. al. will have a difficult future? [...]
> No. All I said was that if a language's "success" relies almost
> exclusively on the heavy presence of legacy code, its future is
> difficult. I see this for C and C++ excluding VC++.
Well, you lumped all C/C++ code a legacy code. The most successful
distribution of Python is the one written in C, so it's success relies
almost exclusively on legacy code. Ditto for Perl, Linux, etc.
You can't have it both ways. Either C/C++ is all legacy code, or it's
not. If it is, the building products in Python/Perl/Java (and probably
most of the others) is building in a dependence on a legacy code base.
If they *aren't* legacy code, then your premise that C/C++ only has
legacy code is false. Personally, I think your premise is false. There
are lots of projects still under active development using C/C++. There
are new ones starting every day. Contrary to your assertion about
VC++, they are starting in environments where VC++ doesn't run.
I think you need to come out from behind your Windows box for a
while. There are *lots* of applications areas that don't need GUIs,
and don't run on Windows. I'll bet most of the computers in your house
are running software that falls into that category.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
