Promoting Python

[Mark Lawrence]

On 06/04/2016 14:54, BartC wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 12:46, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> BartC <bc at freeuk.com>:
>
>>> It'll cope with ordinary coding as well, although such programs seem
>>> to be frowned upon here; they are not 'Pythonic'.
>>
>> I wonder what is left of Python after your list of exclusions.
>
> There are plenty of features that /I/ consider must-have, which Python
> doesn't have. It has to emulate them, unsatisfactorily, with variables
> or classes or functions, or do without.

Please list all these features.  Precisely what is unsatisfactory about 
the emulation?  Please state why you're still here if Python is such a 
poorly designed language that it doesn't fit your needs.  Or is it 
simply that your mindset cannot get to grips with something that is 
different to that you've previously used?

>
> But you're right in that little is actually essential. Basic has shown
> that.
>
> You need expressions, IF, GOTO, variables and assignments, and some
> means of doing I/O.

Are you suggesting that 21st century programming should return to the 
era of spaghetti code?

>
> Pretty much every language has (had) those, although it's fashionable
> now to do away with GOTO, and some are getting rid of (rewritable)
> variables too!

It's 50 years to my knowledge since the first paper stating that GOTO 
isn't needed, hardly "fashionable now".  I get a very strong impression 
that you've never had to maintain appalingly written code.  The overuse 
of GOTO will certainly help in that area.  How does it go, something 
like "always consider that the person maintaining your code in six 
months time is a homicidal maniac armed with an axe"?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence