why is python better than eg. smalltalk?? no one has any solid arguments! you should all go to church with all that religious talk!

[Carlo v. Dango]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:08:02 +0100, Andy Jewell <andy at wild-flower.co.uk> 
wrote:

OK, I'm on the python wagon as well, but I do not really se much 
improvement over JAVA... especially when it comes to maintaining and 
reusing code (e.g. API's)... here the types are really helpful. So just 
saying typing is bad, is to me, plain wrong. I guess its like choosing a 
language for the problem... if your code is simple and script-like, you 
probably do not get nothing but trouble from the types, but maintaining a 
1 billion line of code program, you probably feel less agony by the 
restrictions (and promises!) set up by the types. In a sense types are 
like contracts (DBC) and we do agree on those as being a good thing, 
right??!

Also, I see all this advocacy of python which to me seems more like 
religion.. there is no concretenes in it, and I completely fail to see how 
python beats any of the other dynamically typed languages such as 
smalltalk or self... what is it with you guys? :)

however, when playing and trying to bend a language a dynamically typed 
language is way more fun to play with than a typed one! But the integrated 
lexer and parser in smalltalk, makes one wonder why python should be a 
choice here? Maybe what people like is all the extra software which has 
been and is being written for python, which you do not have in smalltalk? 
or what is it?

-carlo

> Kef,
>
> Funny, a lot of people make testemonials about Python, just like you 
> have...
>
> (I'm sure people also make testimonials about any given language, too).
>
> I think the difference is the way people tend to come to Python: search 
> the
> archives and you'll see hundreds of instances of 'seekers' having 'come
> home'.
>
> Python seems to engender an almost 'born again programmer' style 
> response from
> most who bother to try to master it.  Most say that when they eventually 
> /do/
> take the step, the transition is surprisingly easy - Guido's claim in the
> tutorial that you can learn most of what you need to know to become
> productive in an afternoon is not too far from the truth.
>
> When it comes to the finer, weirder, and (dare I say) darker secrets of
> Python, c.l.py is the place to learn about them.  You can learn 
> everything
> from 'just for fun' tricks that you'd never dream of incorporating into a
> real program to powerful magic that makes your program run n-times 
> faster,
> without losing readability.
>
> Still, the guys here are generally quite firmly grounded on reality; 
> there are
> certain scenarios where you just *wouldn't* employ Python, and the peeps 
> here
> in c.l.py will freely admit that.  For some, the obvious answer is to 
> write
> the appropriate parts in, say, C and use Python as a 'wrapper' around 
> that,
> saving the bits that Python is good at for Python and the bits that C is 
> good
> at for C.  Others would advocate simply using the *right* language in the
> first place.  I think a realistic motto would be "one size *does not* fit
> all".
>
> Still, given the 'performance limitations' of python, I've not really 
> found it
> to be too deficient at the things I want it to do.  In fact, often, due 
> to
> its exceptionally well optimised high-level data types, I'm often 
> surprised
> at exactly *how* fast it is ;-)
>
> For my part, I came in from a firmly Wirthian perspective: Pascal; 
> Modula-2
> and Oberon.  Aside from the Pascal family of languages, I also know 
> LOADS of
> dialects of BASIC; 4GL's like dBase; Assembly (6502, 8080, Z80, 8086, 
> 68000);
> DOS/Windows batch language; and a little FORTH.
>
> With Oberon, I though I had found the Grail, but was frustrated by
> poor/incomplete implementations of it, or with the licensing terms of the
> better implementations.  It was at the point that I ditched POW Oberon, 
> that
> I made the transition to Python.  I, too, was amazed, and I continue to 
> be,
> too.  That was about 3 years ago...
>
> Python does generate certain problems of its own, though: I recently had 
> to
> learn RPG III and IV for work, and going 'back to the dark ages' was
> incredibly frustrating and just felt 'bad'.  I guess you get spoiled by 
> the
> beauty of Python... and by the facilities,  libraries and support
> infrastructure (i.e. c.l.py).
>
> Python does seem to magnify the flaws in other languages: everything else
> seems (to me at least) to be second-best now.
>
> Slither On!
>
> -andyj
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/