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.
Comments
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.