Is there a programming language that is combination of Python andBasic?

[Brian Blais]

On Apr 18, 2009, at 5:44 , Hendrik van Rooyen wrote:

> "baykus" <b...rki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I guess I did not articulate myself well enough. I was just looking
>> for a toy to play around. I never suggested that Python+Basic  
>> would be
>> better than Python and everyone should use it. Python is Python and
>> Basic is Basic. I am not comparing them at all. I understand the
>> merits of Python but that does not mean I can play with ideas?
>
> Apparently this is not allowed by the CS thought police.
>
>

> to untangle some spaghetti code.  He did not mention if
> the spaghetti was actually doing it's job, bug free, which
> IMO is the only rational test for the quality of a piece
> of code, because it is the reason for its existence.
> The aesthetics are, like all aesthetics, a matter of opinion.

Actually, I strongly disagree with this statement.  In my experience,  
there has been very very few pieces of code that I've written that I  
hadn't wanted to *modify* at some point: extend it to a new set of  
circumstances, cover a different case, change the output, etc...  The  
quality of a piece of code is not just if it works right now, but if  
you can reasonably extend it for the future.  I toyed with Perl for a  
year or so, but couldn't give it my full attention.  As a result,  
every few weeks when I wanted to modify what I wrote, I had to re- 
learn the code all over again because the syntax was so terse.  The  
same is true for the typical use of a goto: you have to relearn the  
program, because the flow jumps around.  It's not just about  
aesthetics, but about being able to work with a piece of code.


			bb


-- 
Brian Blais
bblais at bryant.edu
http://web.bryant.edu/~bblais



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20090418/ede67c48/attachment-0001.html>