Python vs. Io

[Josiah Carlson]

> If there are good enough responses, I'll use Python. I just wanted to
> know a reason why Python is better. Also, these responses might be
> used to make Io better (since it's a young language).
> 
> Daniel Ehrenberg

 From your responses, you seem to prefer a /flexibility/ in IO syntax 
and semantics that will never be attainable in Python.

Python isn't about allowing different syntax or semantics, it is about 
having a reasonable set of syntax and semantics along with a reasonable 
object, class, module and package structure, resulting in a language 
that allows the vast majority of algorithms, data structures, and 
/ideas/ to be implemented in a way that is both easy to write and to 
understand.

I would say something similar about IO, but I don't know what it is 
about (and I am too turned off by its syntax to find out).

Using metaphors; when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 
Me?  I've got 3 hammers: Python, C/C++, Lisp.  I have not yet met a nail 
that wasn't properly pounded with my Python hammer.  Nails:
data processing
databases
sockets (both async with asyncore and sync with threads)
gui development
data structure implementation
prototyping
etc.

Now, a few of those could easily be hammered with either C/C++ or Lisp, 
but I wouldn't have been able to built the apartment complexes with 
C/C++ or Lisp that I was able to with Python.


What you are asking us, conceptually, is what hammer you should use. 
The hell if we care what hammer you use, we hang out here because /we/ 
enjoy using the Python hammer.  Of course it would be nice for you to 
use the Python hammer and give to the community, but I'm sure the IO 
community feels the same way - so whatever you want, I'm sure it will be 
fine.

  - Josiah