Why python???

[Terry Reedy]

"Alex Martelli" <aleax at aleax.it> wrote in message
news:8Um6b.34442$R32.1077180 at news2.tin.it...

> for a really wide range of tasks.  A language we're developing at
> AB Strakt as part of the CAPS framework, for example, looks like...:
>
>    attribute salary is Currency
>        "Salario mensile"
>        restriction quantity(1)
>
>        on create code Python
>            if value[0] < minimumSalary:
>                value = [ minimumSalary ]
>            return value
>        %%

My reflexive reaction was 'ugh'.  My considered reaction is 'bravo'.
You have avoided the 'ghetto trap' that I think too many
mini-languages fall into by trying to be more or less turing-complete
with a proprietary syntax useless for any other task.  The Python
'humancode' fits pretty seamlessly into the declaration framework for
two reasons: the common use of significant indentation and the
semi-natural (versus chicken-scratch) look of Python.

> etc -- now THAT is a higher-level language than Python, and it's
> a dream to use for directly transcribing into executable code the
> results of ERD analysis for typical business applications to be
> deployed as multi-layer clients/middleware/server distributed apps;

If your declaration form requires overall noticeably fewer written
lines than the Python translation, then I probably could learn to like
it too.

...
> suited.  Note that this language uses Python as its lower-level
> embedded language; indeed the whole VVHL (very-very high-level)
> program gets compiled into Python (by a Python-coded compiler, of
> course) and executed as Python (by a Python-coded middleware, of
> course -- resting on top of a very special Python-coded OODB and
> feeding clients such as GUI ones, Web apps, and batch scripts --
> all typically coded, of course, in Python).

I am curious: Will the CAPS marketers reveal or hide the fact that the
readable procedural sublanguage is a *real* language that CAPS users
can potentially use outside the CAPS box?

Terry J. Reedy