Python and Flaming Thunder

[s0suk3 at gmail.com]

On May 13, 10:24 am, Dave Parker <davepar... at flamingthunder.com>
wrote:
> >  The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
> > software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
> > specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
> > programming languages.
>
> Perhaps.  Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
> (and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
> the cost of just one book on Python.
>

It doesn't matter if it's $19.95 or $0.1; why would anyone even bother
looking at such a weird and unconventional language? And why do you
bring up books? Are Flaming Thunder books free? (I doubt there's even
one).

> I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
> use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
> time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
> (unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Easier? Such an unconventionality? I don't think anybody will ever
need an easier language than Python; Python touched bottom on that
area.

> Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
> Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
> (Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables).  So again, since
> many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
> will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

I doubt that any Python "user" (please don't say, "user", Python
programmers are not customers of some clunky proprietary product,
they're programmers using a open source tool) has ever touched
"Flaming Thunder", or anything that even looks like that, since Python
programmers are somewhat more conventional, more like in the C lang,
so they may use things like Java, C/C++, but never something that says
"Set this to this"...

Also, Python is relatively slow, compared to compiled languages. But
if anyone wants speed, they'll go for C, which can be around 50-200
times faster than Python. It's speed of development versus speed of
execution. So why would anyone use such an unconventional thing like
your language, which is statically typed (is it?), if they would only
gain from 5-10 times faster?

> Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
> motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python.  This weekend,
> Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
> languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
> not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
> be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
> implementing.

You claim that "repeat n times" if better than for loops (it's "for",
not "FOR"). It's a matter of taste. But just out of a wild guess, I'd
say one 100% of the developers around the world (except you) will
always prefer for loops rather than your weird thing.

> Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
> awkwardnesses.  Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
> those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed.  The difference: I
> can't afford to ignore users.

Again, if may be awkward for you, but most of us around here (well,
all, really) will never try to program something by saying
"repeat..." (as I said, it's a matter of taste, and you have a pretty
weird taste).

Now, let's be realistic for a moment. The big crack you call a
programming language will never get any attention. So get out of home
and go get a life.