Not all of these things are 100% true, but those that aren't are true enough to make Python less painful to use than a lot of the alternatives.
Python is not multiple coding styles - not entirely true, but probably true enough.
Python is not monkey-patched - again not entirely true, but maybe true enough.
Python is not overly concise - mostly true, though I've seen abuses of array slicing and passing/storing/calling functions.
Python is not overly verbose - pretty much at the mercy of whoever is writing code, but again, seems to be true enough.
Python seems to be pretty good or good enough in a lot of ways, and deserves credit for this. The far-sighted view will recognize it as a local maxima, however.
(A "perfect" language is like a perfect predator. A tireless, scentless, invisible, silent, indestructible, ultra-fast killing machine would probably wreck its environment. Considered in the context of evolutionary change, it's practically impossible for such a thing to come about.)
I agree completely. Python isn't perfect but, for me, it solves the issues I listed. I don't like Java and Perl can be the Pit of Despair. I don't have to worry about 4.days working depending on if I loaded a library that loaded another library that properly patched the integer class and the Scheme/Lisp (perceived by me) clusterfuck of libraries, reader macros, slight incompatibilities etc is just non-existent.
I would drop python in an instant of a better language came along. For me, the question isn't what it fixes, but what it succeeds at. It makes my professional life less painful and that's really the only reason I need.
edit: Also would like to not that the original article seemed fairly pointless. It's not really saying anything of substance.
The answer to 'Why Python?' is a lot better than what you're going to get for Ruby, Scheme, or the continued use of Perl. At least PHP has its execution story going for it (immediate mode) even if the language sucks ass.
'Why Arc' doesn't even have a polite answer at all. There's a log in pg's eye, and he's here picking at motes.
Comments
Python is not static
Python is not monkey-patched
Python is not multiple coding styles
Python is not enterprise
Python is not overly verbose
Python is not overly concise
Python is not lacking in libraries
Python is not a dialect
Python is not manual memory management
Python is not hard to learn
Python is not a roadblock to writing code quickly
And really the only important issue: Python is not a pain to use.
Not all of these things are 100% true, but those that aren't are true enough to make Python less painful to use than a lot of the alternatives.
Python is not multiple coding styles - not entirely true, but probably true enough.
Python is not monkey-patched - again not entirely true, but maybe true enough.
Python is not overly concise - mostly true, though I've seen abuses of array slicing and passing/storing/calling functions.
Python is not overly verbose - pretty much at the mercy of whoever is writing code, but again, seems to be true enough.
Python seems to be pretty good or good enough in a lot of ways, and deserves credit for this. The far-sighted view will recognize it as a local maxima, however.
(A "perfect" language is like a perfect predator. A tireless, scentless, invisible, silent, indestructible, ultra-fast killing machine would probably wreck its environment. Considered in the context of evolutionary change, it's practically impossible for such a thing to come about.)
I agree completely. Python isn't perfect but, for me, it solves the issues I listed. I don't like Java and Perl can be the Pit of Despair. I don't have to worry about 4.days working depending on if I loaded a library that loaded another library that properly patched the integer class and the Scheme/Lisp (perceived by me) clusterfuck of libraries, reader macros, slight incompatibilities etc is just non-existent.
I would drop python in an instant of a better language came along. For me, the question isn't what it fixes, but what it succeeds at. It makes my professional life less painful and that's really the only reason I need.
edit: Also would like to not that the original article seemed fairly pointless. It's not really saying anything of substance.
This. (or rather, self)
The answer to 'Why Python?' is a lot better than what you're going to get for Ruby, Scheme, or the continued use of Perl. At least PHP has its execution story going for it (immediate mode) even if the language sucks ass.
'Why Arc' doesn't even have a polite answer at all. There's a log in pg's eye, and he's here picking at motes.