Novel Thoughts on Scripting and Languages

[James Huang]

Dave Brueck <dave at pythonapocrypha.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.1042038801.29977.python-list at python.org>...
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, James Huang wrote:
> 
> > > Could you please explain how scripting, e.g. ActiveX (per the article on
> > > your site) is any better (heck, any _different_ for that matter) than
> > > doing it in, e.g. Python? I looked at the example code and it is nearly
> > > identical to the Python equivalent (well, I only looked at the Internet
> > > Explorer example - once I saw that it was virtually identical to the
> > > Python version I stopped reading).
> > >
> >
> > Python for ActiveX is a right thing, and this creates another
> > variant of Python. Another famous one is Jython.
> 
> Not at all. It's not "Python for ActiveX" - it's the standard version of
> Python being used to script ActiveX; it's definitely not some variant of
> Python or special build of it or something.
> 

I probably confused AXScript with what you described. I still haven't
got the exact documentation on this topic (scripting COM/ActiveX in
Python), but nevertheless I take your words for it, since you can load
an extension DLL somehow which can wrap COM/ActiveX components as
native Python objects and voila. But I was right about Jython (which
has nothing wrong with Jython but is a Python language
extension/variant).

> Not that big of a deal, except that ISTM that references to Python on your
> site seem to be inaccurate, that's all. In this specific case, the message
> I got from your documentation was that Judoscript was particularly
> well-suited for these tasks (like scripting ActiveX) but I'm having
> trouble seeing how, or for that matter, seeing that it is even different
> at all except for some minor syntactical differences. There's nothing
> wrong with taking the position that some new tool adds value, I guess I'm
> just not "getting it" though.
> 

You are probably right about the (minor?) inaccuracies whatsoever on
my site about Python, but you totally missed what JudoScript is about:
it's not about syntax. I couldn't care less about so many discussions
about differences between Python and Java and C++ and SmallTalk and
... even beyond syntax level. JudoScript is about direct-ness. I'll
explain in other replies (sorry, too many to respond; got myself into
it so I deserve it:) )

> > > I got a kick out of this statement on your site:
> > >
> > > "which is a much better effort than Python libraries because Java is an
> > > established system programming language , designed for and capable of
> > > building big software applications"
> > >
> > > I guess I don't know who your intended audience is, because to me such a
> > > statement really lowers your credibility. If you'd like I'd be happy to
> > > help rewrite it to at least make it accurate.
> > >
> >
> > I've heard big software projects done in Python, guess that's what you
> > are referring to. Being a C/C++/Java guy, it is hard for me to imagine
> > creating big software with weakly-typed languages beyond prototyping.
> 
> Hmm... how seriously would you take any assertion I made on the basis of
> what I'm comfortable imagining? <0.5 wink> Also, Python isn't a
> weakly-typed language.
> 

As I said, "I guess"-ed. Weakly-typed-ness, are variables required to
be declared with types before use, and do not change for most
situations? I know VB has a strict mode that enforces this.

> FWIW, it's hard for me to imagine creating big software with Java or C++,
> but somehow people manage to do it anyway. Having worked on moderately
> large projects in Java, C++, and Python, I've found Python to be well
> suited to the task. Java projects in particular tend to become unstoppable
> train wrecks as the project size grows.
> 

Large projects are hard to harness anyway. And every project has its
unique situation. Seems like a concensus for now that OOA/P is the
best methodoly for software engineering. Java and Python are so
similar to each other in terms of programming models, conceptually it
is hard for me to see which has a clear advantage. We have big Java
software products like Weblogic, WebSphere, etc. (funny Sun has none,
or, none that is successful.)

But, you are the one who's done all of these, so you have more say on
whether it is language or not that impacted your projects.

> > Even so, Java is still unbeatable.
> 
> I feel the same way about the color 'forest green'. Surely on that basis
> alone people will come around to my way of thinking, right?
> 

Not so sure what you mean but that's ok.

> Nice talking to you!
> -Dave

Likewise!
-James