Python and Ruby

[Nobody]

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:13:38 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:

> I judge a language's simplicity by how long it takes to explain the
> complete language. That is, what minimal set of documentation do you
> need to describe all of the language?

That's not a particularly good metric, IMHO.

A simple "core" language doesn't necessarily make a language simple to
use. You can explain the entirety of pure lambda calculus or combinators
in five minutes, but you wouldn't want to write real code in either (and
you certainly wouldn't want to read such code which was written by someone
else).

For a start, languages with a particularly simple "core" tend to delegate
too much to the library. One thing which puts a lot of people off of
lisp is the lack of infix operators; after all, (* 2 (+ 3 4)) works fine
and doesn't require any additional language syntax. For an alternative,
Tcl provides the "expr" function which essentially provides a sub-language
for arithmetic expressions.

A better metric is whether using N features has O(N) complexity, or O(N^2)
(where you have to understand how each feature relates to each other
feature) or even O(2^N) (where you have to understand every possible
combination of interactions).

> With a handful of statements,
> and a very short list of operators, Python beats out every language in
> the Algol family that I know of.

Not once you move beyond the 10-minute introduction, and have to start
thinking in terms of x + y is x.__add__(y) or maybe y.__radd__(x) and also
that x.__add__(y) is x.__getattribute__('__add__')(y) (but x + y *isn't*
equivalent to the latter due to __slots__), and maybe .__coerce__() gets
involved somewhere, and don't even get me started on __metaclass__ or
__init__ versus __new__ or ...

Yes, the original concept was very nice and clean, but everything since
then has been wedged in there by sheer force with a bloody great hammer.