Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python)

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Sun, 2013-11-10, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
>> On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> >
>>> > * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever
>>> > writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.
>>
>> One of the worst coding experiences I ever had was trying to build an
>> app for a Roku media player.  They have a home-grown language called
>> BrightScript.  Barf.
>
> And this is exactly why I was so strongly against the notion of
> developing an in-house scripting language. It may be a lot of work to
> evaluate Lua, Python, JavaScript, and whatever others we wanted to
> try, but it's a *lot* less work than making a new language that
> actually is worth using.

Yes.  I am baffled that people insist on doing the latter. Designing a
limited /data/ language is often a good idea; designing something
which eventually will need to become Turing-complete is not.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .