"Mike Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Different programming styles are appropriate for different > > tasks, different times and different places, different people. > > And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe > > that one style of programming fits all situations. > > If I read you right, what you're saying is that hammmers aren't good > at driving screws. I don't think anyone would argue about that.
No, the analogy is more like this. Python is hammer that comes in green or blue. The hammer's developers say (perhaps with some reason) that cool colors like green and blue are the best colors because they promote calm when used. Calm hammerers are more productive and less violent. My work is repairing the inside of dark water tanks. It is hard to see blue and green hammers, and to find them if I put them down. I suggest that Python have the option of red hammers. The Python people respond with horror, pointing out the problems with red hammers. I say that I am a calm person already, that I know how to use red hammers safely, but of course the Python people don't want anything to do with the idea. "What will happen if your red hammer falls into the hands of a beginner?" they ask. (I note that although the hammer does have a lot of safety features, it is still easy to poke an eye out with the nail remover if one is not careful.) They also point out that adding a third color will cost time and effort. And the problems of deciding if the hammer should really be red, or maybe orange would be better. So they tell me to go use a red screwdriver. Regarding the differences between hammers and screwdrivers... When a screwdriver is appropriate I use a screwdriver. If I need to write code that does a large amount of CPU intensive number crunching, I use C, not Python. But suppose someone came up with a Python compiler. It would compile any Python program but there would be no speed benefit unless you carefully wrote the code to not use many of Python's dynamic features, so that either by type inferencing or programmer supplied static declarations, the compiler could generate efficient native machine code that executes at near C speeds. Obviously this would require changes (mostly additions?) to the Python language, though these changes would still allow today's style dynamic code to be written and run (though just as slow as today's runs). The payout would be that things written as C-extensions today, would be writable in (a restricted form of) Python. Would the Python orthodoxy favor such a development? Or would that be turning Python into a screwdriver? To me, it would be better because I can now do with a hammer, many of the things I used to do with a screw- driver. I can spend more time becoming a better hammerer, and less time learning the intricacies of screwdrivers. My life is better. > > This has the benefit of attracting more people to Python. > And why is this a benefit? More eyeballs to find bugs. More hands to make improvements. More minds to make suggestions. More hearts to share the joy. :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
