[NTLUG:Discuss] Python Article by Eric S Raymond

[Robert Pearson]

On 5/8/09, Kenneth Loafman <kenneth at loafman.com> wrote:
> Carl Haddick wrote:
>  > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 01:52:12PM -0500, Val Harris wrote:
>  >> On this list, we occasionally see requests for programming language
>  >> recommendations.  Here is an interesting article about Python, written
>  >> by one who has wrestled more than a few project past the faults of its
>  >> chosen language:
>  >>
>  >>    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3882
>  >
>  > First, disclaimers - I've long been a Python patriot, and I'm just a
>  > lurker here so feel free to take me with a grain of salt.  For some
>  > reason, this just seemed like a good thing to rattle on about.
>  >
>  > I, too, seek no flame war.  Perl is a proven tool with awesome
>  > potential.
>
>
> I've got experience in both for many years.  The strength, and to me the
>  major weakness, of Perl is that TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than One Way To
>  Do It).  That was the strength of PL/1 as well, you could program PL/1
>  in COBOL, FORTRAN, and even in PL/1, depending on where you came from.
>  That means that you had to be truly aware of the complete syntax of the
>  language and all its aberrations if you wanted to read other folks code.
>
>  Python is developing some of those faults, but so far the syntax of the
>  language itself is mostly straightforward.  I'm hoping they keep it that
>  way for a long while, at least till I win the Lotto and retire.
>
>  The major strength of any language is its libraries and Perl seems to
>  have a library for just about everything you could envision, and some
>  you probably never would.  Python is catching up on that front.
>
>  I've written C since 1978, when I learned it while sitting in front of a
>  CPM system with K&R at my side.  I've written in more languages than I
>  would dare put on a resume and have found that any project can be done
>  in any language.  I've seen Assemblers in COBOL, FORTRAN, and ALGOL68,
>  Linkers in COBOL and FORTRAN, and all sorts of other odd combinations.
>  In my opinion, the robustness, readability and maintainability of all of
>  these was more dependent upon the quality of the programmer than on the
>  features of the language.
>
>  The language is only a tool to use to translate an idea into a program.
>   Some tools "fit" better than others and some programmers are better
>  mechanics than others.  Really good programmers are hard to find.
>
>  ...Ken
>

This came across the DFWUUG mailing list, is funny and interesting
reading  and sums up my 2 cents:

Hi,

something cute:

<http://james-iry.blogspot.com/2009/05/brief-incomplete-and-mostly-wrong.html>


P.S. I have programmed in most of the languages mentioned, plus many
not mentioned, except Scala...