Python advocacy

[Paul Prescod]

Tim Peters wrote:
> 
> Hmm.  At work this week, I defined a C++ class whose instances occupy
> exactly one byte (& would be useless if they occupied more), and had some
> methods whose bodies consisted of inline assembler #ifdef'ed for various
> platforms.  C++ was perfect for this low-level grunge, while Python is about
> as far from being suitable as I can imagine.  Ask me whether I care <wink>.

Well, in a C++-less world, you would just make a C struct whose
instances occupy exactly one byte and have some functions (perhaps
referred to by function pointers) with inline assembler. Note that I am
not insane enough (yet <0.25 wink>) to suggest that Python replace C.

I think that there is a place in the universe for C with objects and for
a while it sounded like ANSI C 200x was tending in that direction but I
haven't followed closely. It is just C with objects and exceptions and
overloading and Turing-complete templates and multiple inheritance and
weird interactions between every feature that I object to.

I feel with C++ as I do with Perl, that there is a nice little language
screaming to get out, but if it were possible to get agreement on what
the nice little language was, the gross hairball would never have come
about.

-- 
 Paul Prescod  - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself
"We still do not know why mathematics is true and whether it is
certain. But we know what we do not know in an immeasurably richer way
than we did. And learning this has been a remarkable achievement,
among the greatest and least known of the modern era." 
        - from "Advent of the Algorithm" David Berlinski
	http://www.opengroup.com/mabooks/015/0151003386.shtml