Article of interest: Python pros/cons for the enterprise

[Jeff Schwab]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jeff Schwab <jeff at schwabcenter.com> writes:
>> One great thing about C is that
>> a programmer can realistically hope to know the entire language
>> definition; maybe Guido would like the same to be true of Python.
> 
> C is horrendously complicated, with zillions of obscure traps.  C++ is
> even worse;

Who feeds you this stuff?


> there's actually a published book specifically about C++
> pitfalls.

Mercy, a whole book?

My current favorite book of language-specific pitfalls:

     http://www.javapuzzlers.com/

Wait a few years.  A Python Puzzlers book will surely be on the shelves 
eventually.  Here are some of the top results when Googling "python 
pitfalls:"

     http://zephyrfalcon.org/labs/python_pitfalls.html
     http://evanjones.ca/python-pitfall-scope.html

Maybe C++ needs better pub.  The guy who wrote the first of those 
articles says elswhere on his web site:

     "My Python pitfalls article seems to be a popular read. It's
     written from a somewhat negative viewpoint: things that can go
     wrong. (Of course, that's useful; you're never going to do these
     things wrong again. Right? ;-) To counter-balance this, I think
     there should an article with a more positive viewpoint as well.
     So I was wondering, if I could collect 10 "anti-pitfalls"; parts
     of the Python language that are especially clever, elegant and
     intuitive."


Good luck with that.  Once language Y comes along, there will be a 
million reasons people believe that language X was downright unusable.


> Python is underspecified but freer of weird hazards in
> practice.
> 
> C and C++ should practically be outlawed at this point.  

On what grounds?  "I don't approve of the programming language you're 
using.  Cease and desist.  Nyah!"