Long Live Python!

[James_Althoff at i2.com]

Peter Hansen wrote:
>James_Althoff at i2.com wrote:
>>
>> Phil Hunt wrote:
>> >On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:47:50 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>I tend to think of Python more as an extremely effective and
maintainable
>> >>general-purpose programming language, which happens also to work
>> >>very well when applied as a "scripting language" (whatever that
means).
>> >
>> >To me it means "good for short programs <100 lines". Bear in mind
>> >that 100 lines of Python is equivalent to 300 lines of Java or 400
>> >lines of C++.
>>
>> We are shipping a successful product that comprises more than 100,000
lines
>> of Jython.
>>
>> What is it about Python that would, in your experience, make it only
"good
>> for short programs <100 lines".
>
>In Phil's defense (not that I think he can't speak for himself),
>he didn't say "only".  That's your word.

Granted, I used "only".  On the other hand, if someone says "good for short
programs <100 lines" -- mentioning a specific number ("100" in this case)
-- wouldn't common sense dictate that the intention was also to indicate
something like "Python is something *different than good* for programs
>=100 lines (or let's say *significantly* greater than 100 lines -- to be
reasonable and fair)?

Otherwise, I would think it much simpler and less ambiguous just to say
"Python is good for programs small, medium, and large  -- which is, in
fact, my view!  :-)


>He was just responding to
>my parenthetical (whatever that means) in reference to the label
>being applied to Python.
>
>I think "good for short programs <100 lines" is not a bad definition
>of "scripting language", but I don't think he wasn't saying he
>thinks that's all Python is good for.
>
>--
>----------------------
>Peter Hansen, P.Eng.
>peter at engcorp.com
>--
>http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Jim