php vs python

[Ivan Illarionov]

On Mon, 26 May 2008 10:11:22 +0200, Max M wrote:

> Jerry Stuckle skrev:
>> Ivan Illarionov wrote:
> 
>> I repeat.  The language has nothing to do with it.  Good programmers
>> write good code.  Lousy programmers write bad code.
> 
> That is simply not true!
> 
> The languag has a lot to do with what you can do in any given time.
> 
> You can write good code in a bad language. But it will take lot more
> time. And so it will not be done.
> 
> Your argument, if it was true, would mean that I could just as well
> write a blog in c or even assembler, and still write optimal code.
> 
> 
> php is a terrible language and I cringe whenever I have to use it. In
> fact I have turned down many jobs because they were written in php. It
> is simply to frustrating.

I want to cite Paul Graham on this topic:

"it's all based on one unspoken assumption, and that assumption turns out 
to be false. The pointy-haired boss believes that all programming 
languages are pretty much equivalent. If that were true, he would be 
right on target. If languages are all equivalent, sure, use whatever 
language everyone else is using.

But all languages are not equivalent, and I think I can prove this to you 
without even getting into the differences between them. If you asked the 
pointy-haired boss in 1992 what language software should be written in, 
he would have answered with as little hesitation as he does today. 
Software should be written in C++. But if languages are all equivalent, 
why should the pointy-haired boss's opinion ever change? In fact, why 
should the developers of Java have even bothered to create a new language?

Presumably, if you create a new language, it's because you think it's 
better in some way than what people already had. And in fact, Gosling 
makes it clear in the first Java white paper that Java was designed to 
fix some problems with C++. So there you have it: languages are not all 
equivalent. If you follow the trail through the pointy-haired boss's 
brain to Java and then back through Java's history to its origins, you 
end up holding an idea that contradicts the assumption you started with.

So, who's right? James Gosling, or the pointy-haired boss? Not 
surprisingly, Gosling is right. Some languages are better, for certain 
problems, than others. And you know, that raises some interesting 
questions. Java was designed to be better, for certain problems, than C+
+. What problems? When is Java better and when is C++? Are there 
situations where other languages are better than either of them?"
and so on at
http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html

I tend to share PG's opinions on the subject (though I think that Python 
is superior to Lisp :-).

The argument that "the language has nothing to do with it" is an old  
pointy-haired boss argument. I doubt that a person who think this way can 
be a really good programmer.

Ivan