Is Python your only programming language?

[Tim Rowe]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:13:53 -0700, Donn Cave <donn at u.washington.edu>
wrote:

>Sure, within the domain of computer programming problems,
>no single language can adequately serve for everything.
>But that's a much broader range than most of us encompass,

Most, maybe, but as, loosely, a computer scinece consutant, I probably
get a broader range than most!  I have to know at least the basic
characteristics of any language I may encounter, even if I don't have
to code it, and my experience is that the best way to do it is to code
it -- whatever it is -- at least a bit.

>and I think it's really rather reasonable in principle for
>a single language to satisfy a single programmer's needs.

I'd suggest that that depends on the level of the programmer.
Certainly I'd say get to know one really well.  But then I reckon
getting another language under the belt -- the /right/ another
language that complements the first -- offers massive advantages over
the programmer with only one.

>For my purposes, there seem to be three programming language
>roles:  a low level system interface language (C, for UNIX),
>an application language, and a high level system interface
>language (shell, for UNIX.)  In practice, the application
>language is sometimes Python, more commonly C, and in my
>dreams it could be Haskell.

If I want to get something up and running quickly then I go straight
to Python.  If thousands of lives depend on the code working right I
would not be allowed to use Python, and, IMHO, quite rightly too.  It
just doesn't have what it needs for proving correctness, and adding
those things would scupper the getting things up and running quickly.