UserLinux chooses Python as "interpretive language" of choice

[John Roth]

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:x-idnT1qO-aKaniiRVn-iw at comcast.com...
>
> "John Roth" <newsgroups at jhrothjr.com> wrote in
> message news:vu8dii9mh30bf9 at news.supernews.com...
> >
> > It doesn't matter. As you can see by my reply to
> Bengt,
> > the crux of the issue is that, in Ruby, the
> function call
> > syntax is *optional.* There is no way to make it
> optional
> > in Python, and it is not clear whether it should
> be.
>
>
> Just so you know, your adding as conclusion the
> line
>
> > It's a non-starter for Python, though.
>
> did change how I read (and responded to) that (and
> other) posts.   Since there is no serious proposal
> to change Python, there is no proposal to resist.

It wasn't a serious proposal in the first place. The proposal
was to take a look at some of the things in some other
languages, and think about them. Somehow that got
lost in the discussion.

And I was quite serious about that. I have the feeling
that there is a good deal of fossilization of the brain
cells setting in.

I could be wrong about that, but I begin to worry when
I see Larry Wall ripping Perl apart and redesigning
it, and I get the impression that the only reason for
Python 3.0 (which seems to be the same distance
in the future, regardless of when we talk about it)
is to make a few relatively minor incompatible
changes.

John Roth

>
> Terry J. Reedy
>
>