Interesting comments about Py on LT

[Bo M. Maryniuck]

On Wednesday 07 August 2002 17:37, Pete Shinners wrote:
> by this argument, languages like C and C++ are not "complete" languages
> either. 
OTOH, what do they mean "complete"? As I understand, a "complete" can be 
- complete idiot
- complete Mirosoft Windows
- complete sucks
- complete <buzzword/>

...or other "complete" stuff like that. If the language is _complete_, that 
should mean "no more growth is possible" and "we get top of our product". So 
if any tool is COMPLETE, just don't use it...

> outside of that, python covers just about all the bases you
> mention. in fact even better, there are often multiple libraries to cover
> these issues, so you don't need to suffer with "one-size-fits-most".

I think the main "problem" of the Python as the language is just a commertial 
advertisement, fat (and mostly stupid) managers and random lamers, who 
eventually type some twisty code, using tools that other stupidiums enforces 
to.

> i'd actually prefer to see the same thing said about java. 
[skipped]

Concerning me, I agree fully. There is no such thing that you can do with 
Java, but not with the Python. But there are such things, that you CAN'T do 
with Java (actually can, but who healthy want overkills?): is small and fast 
scriptings or REALLY FAST developing.

OTOH, what is RAD programming? Is it such GUI ir IDE, which generates you A 
LOT of garbage-Java-code which uses closed-source libraries with bigs inside, 
or RAD is what you can develope manually, but simply (not primitively!), fast 
and powerfull? 

If the question for Python is "To be or not to be", the Python answers "To 
be!":

>>> hex(0x2b or 0x2b)
'0x2b'

:-)

-- 
Sincerely yours, Bogdan M. Maryniuck

The chat program is in public domain. This is not the GNU public license. If
it breaks then you get to keep both pieces.
(Copyright notice for the chat program)