Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python)
88888 Dihedral
dihedral88888 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 11 12:51:00 EST 2013
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> 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.
Python is designed with the VM
interpreter to execute compiled
byte codes.
Of course, C/C++/JAVA are lower
level languages not designed in
this way.
To remedy the efficient part,
cython and C-extensions are available
in Python.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list