Why use Perl when we've got Python?!
John W. Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com
Fri Aug 13 23:08:00 EDT 1999
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> "John W. Stevens" <jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com> writes:
> :But in a test where programmers are ignorant of each, Python is
> :the prefered choice . . . *EXCEPT* where the programmers were
> :experienced C programmers.
>
> Well what else are you going to get? BASIC programmers? Now those
> are clever folks for you! Of course most programmers are C (or C++)
> programmers.
Sigh. Not "of course". There are quite a few programmers, now, who
don't have a C/Unix background.
And, though I failed to mention it (I was trying to be a little bit
light), many of those C programmers came around after a while.
> It's the only real-world langauge that gets the jobs
> done in millions of environments. Every CompSci student should be
> proficient at C/C++. Anything else is fluff. Beneficial, but fluff.
Wow. Strong words.
I note, with some sadness, that you failed to mention Fortran or
Cobol, languages that also get the job done, in millions of
real world environments. Fortran and Cobol are fluff, hunh?
> I don't care whether they're proficient at six other languages, and
> in fact, I hope they know those six others, but C/C++ is what counts.
> What kind of "programmers" are you talking about?
Real programmers. Those who do it for a living. Some do C, others do
C++, yet others use Cobol, Fortran, Visual Basic, Objective-C, assembler,
Lisp, Prolog, Pascal, etc.
The whole world is *NOT* C.
> I think your newsreader is buggy. Better fix it.
My news reader works fine. Your news server or your news reader are
flawed. Better fix 'em. . .
John S.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list