UserLinux chooses Python as "interpretive language" of choice

[Hartmut Goebel]

John Roth wrote:
> "Steve Lamb" <grey at despair.dmiyu.org> wrote in message
>>    If you had run it you would have understood it.  You didn't run it,
>>    did you?
> 
> It doesn't matter. As you can see by my reply to Bengt,

It does matter, since the _output_ of the result (which Steve posted for 
your convenience) contains the answer to your question.

> the crux of the issue is that, in Ruby, the function call
> syntax is *optional.* 

The crux of this 'option' is that it's ambiguos whether you wnat to 
_access_ or _call_ the function object. See line 12 of the output 
meantioned above to know why Python will never implement such an 
'option'. [And BTW I probably will never use a language having such an 
'option'.]

  > What I'm missing, however, is any *thoughtful*
> discussion of the issues involved. Your [perjoritive
> adverb deleted] response makes it clear that you
> didn't think of the issues, you just reacted.

*walking to the fuel-station, filling my many-years-unused flame-thrower 
for the upcoming flame-battle*

> John Roth

-- 
Regards
Hartmut Goebel

| Hartmut Goebel               | We build the crazy compilers |
| h.goebel at crazy-compilers.com | Compiler Manufacturer        |