Brandon's abrasive style (was Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?)

[Tim Rowe]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:43:12 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
<vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote:

>- Python is not a good language for low-level 3D graphics problems.  C++ is
>better.

Agreed.  And there are probably special purpose low-level 3D graphics
languages that would beat the pants off C++, which I would look for if
I had to do low-level 3D graphics.  And then see if they could be
integrated with Python, because few problems are /just/ low-level 3D
graphics.

>- Python isn't a rapid prototyping godsend for every problem out there.

Agreed in theory, though I've yet to find a problem for which it
isn't.  That said, for designing GUIs I prefer Delphi or VB -- but if
I'd spent the same money on Python tools as I did on Delphi and VB I
expect I could have a nice GUI designer for Python too (could I?)

>- GUI and tools support can end up being more important than language
>niceties.

Agreed.  Lucky Python is so good there, isn't it? :-)

>- Microsoft C# and .NET are strategic threats to Python's prosperity and
>vitality, if not survival.

In the case of C# I think the effect is marginal.  There are /some/
Python applications for which C# would be a contender, and may be good
enough for Microsoft's marketing to overcome Python's natural
superiority (tongue only /partly/ in cheek).  But for most
applications I can't imagine C# even approaching Python's
productivity, and I have enough confidence in human nature to believe
that there will always be those who value that productivity more than
they value the words of the marketeers.  And that's before we even
start on platform issues and whether Microsoft will keep moving
goalposts to keep mono incompatible -- or whether developers will
trust them not to, even if they don't.

.NET is orthogonal to language choice.  Clearly Python has to coexist
with it, but I don't see how it's a threat.

>- Pythonistas should consider trying to eat Java's lunch, because they
>aren't going to eat Microsoft's lunch.

This Pythonista isn't interested in eating anybody else's lunch.  I'm
getting on with the job, and have found a very nice tool for it,
thanks.

>- Ruby has some mindshare among people with knowledge of Python.

Agreed, because AFAICS they both arose from the same need: to make
scripting languages more scaleable.  They have both grown far beyond
what that origin would indicate.  Similarly, Pascal has some mindshare
among people with knowledge of C.  So?

>- Yet unnamed languages are capable of taking Python's place on the food
>chain.

Agreed.  Python will eventually decline and be replaced by something
newer and better.  It may be Python++ (sorry, Python += 1) or it may
be some completely different language and programming paradigm.  I
look forward to it.  I love Python, but I am fickle.  If a language
comes along that makes my life easier or more fun, I'll go with the
fun and the easy life, thank you.  I don't see it happening RSN,
though.

>- You have to promote your language, grow its market share, to prevent that
>from happening.

Why prevent it from happening?  It's life, it's evolution, it will
happen whatever we do.  If something better /does/ come along, why
should we try to stop people using it?  Why should we not use it
ourselves?  My first programming language was Focal, but when I saw
Fortran I lost any interest I had in fighting for Focal's market
share.

>These analyses are called "sanity" in the Windows world.  It's Reality On
>The Ground.  It's really odd to come to a developer community where people
>are insular and freak out about these kinds of pronouncements.  It makes
>Windows people wonder if Python people are capable of industrial relevancy.

Industrial relevancy [sic] in which sense? Making Python tools or
making products /using/ Python?  Your comments only seem relevant to
the former, which is a minority interest when so much good stuff is
free.

>The rest of you: wake up!  Smell the Windows!

Agreed.  Some versions of Windows do stink a bit, don't they?