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

[wxjmfauth at gmail.com]

> 
> 
> * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. 

The flexible string representation is a perfect exemple.

Again, a short explanation:

This FSR splits unicode in chunks. Two immediate consequences:
- It's necessary to keep track of "each individual internal pieces of text".
- It's necessary to waste time in switching between the internal coding
schemes.

Bad memory and bad performance at the same time.


In fact, with such a mechanism, it is even impossible to write an editor.

jmf



I do not recommend ever
> 
> writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.
> 
> 
> 
> * Some languages force you to do a lot of bookkeeping, memory
> 
> management, etc. These are inferior unless their corresponding
> 
> advantages (usually performance or memory use) justify it.
> 
> 
> 
> * Some situations specifically demand one language. If you're writing
> 
> code to be deployed on cheap web servers, it's probably going to have
> 
> to be in PHP. If it's to run inside a web browser, it pretty much has
> 
> to be JavaScript, ActionScript, or maybe something that compiles to
> 
> one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> But that would still leave you with a good few choices. When it comes
> 
> down to it, how do you choose between Ruby, Python, Perl, Pike,
> 
> JavaScript, <insert language of choice here>, etcetera? I can think of
> 
> a few considerations that may or may not be important... and I'm sure
> 
> you can add more.
> 
> 
> 
> - Library support. For web work, it might be useful to be able to
> 
> create a PNG image on the fly (live graphs and such), or to have a
> 
> simple one-liner that handles cookies and persistence.
> 
> 
> 
> - Familiarity with the language. Why learn another one when you
> 
> already know this one?
> 
> 
> 
> - *Un*familiarity with the language. If you're going to have to learn,
> 
> may as well charge your boss for it!
> 
> 
> 
> - Proper Unicode support. For manipulating text, helps to be able to
> 
> work with it as text.
> 
> 
> 
> - Lack of proper Unicode support. Maybe it's easier to just work with
> 
> bytes everywhere? :)
> 
> 
> 
> - Ease/atomicity of deployment of new versions (maybe even while it's running)
> 
> 
> 
> - Buzzwordiness? If your boss asks you to choose a language and you
> 
> can say either "Ruby on Rails" or "CherryPy", are you more likely to
> 
> get approval for the former?
> 
> 
> 
> Something to throw open there. Citations from actual choices made a bonus. :)
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisA