Promoting Python

[BartC]

On 06/04/2016 15:20, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 14:54, BartC wrote:

>Please state why you're still here if Python is such a
> poorly designed language that it doesn't fit your needs.

I was replying to the OP who was being put off the language. The vast 
majority have to choose an off-the-shelf language, and in that 
situation, Python is probably one of the best choices for someone 
progressing from Basic.

It might have been difficult to tell, but I was /for/ Python in that 
post, not against it. But I'm not afraid to mention cons as well as pros.

 > Or is it
 > simply that your mindset cannot get to grips with something that is
 > different to that you've previously used?

(I've actually implemented versions of 3 or 4 of the 8 things I listed. 
Coming up with and implementing this stuff is fun (and I can see how 
languages and libraries can end up brimming full of every possible 
feature you can think of). But ending up with a new must-have feature 
that is used all the time is harder.)

>> 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 mean for it it to disappear completely from languages.

> 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.

(I've not defending its use, but there are good reasons for retaining it.

Suppose you had the job of translating language X to Y. X contains 
control structures that don't exist in Y. Or it maybe it just uses GOTO. 
Would the task be easier if Y had GOTO, or without?)

-- 
Bartc