Perl is worse! (was: Python is Wierd!)

[William Tanksley]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 08:32:49 GMT, Steve Lamb wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 02:08:14 GMT, Grant Edwards <nobody at nowhere.nohow> wrote:
>>Only if "debone" is a valid operation for the object "peach" and if dial is
>>a valid operation for the object "waffle-iron".  You can't state a-priori
>>that this is the case.

>>In real-life only certain operations are valid for a particular object.

>In real-life you can't make them valid for a certain object, in a
>programming language you can which is exactly why trying to magle real-world
>limitations upon the constructs of a computer is, well, not exactly the most
>ideal thing to do.

You were previously making the point that humans would have an easier time
learning Python if only it behaved as you expected it to.  We're pointing
out that Python behaves in a way very much like all of their experience in
the 'real world' would lead them to expect.

>>>>I don't understand the analogy.  Pens are not responsible for
>>>>parsing English sentances and proofreading them.  They're
>>>>responsible for leaving a visible trail when they're dragged
>>>>across a paper surface.

>>>    Exactly.  

>>Huh?

>The pen doesn't toss an exception, neither should the language since they
>are both /tools/.

But again, the pen isn't attempting to parse anything; the language IS.

And the fact that they're both tools doesn't make them both usable in the
same circumstances; the pen, for example, makes a GREAT way to clean out
your ears, but the programming language works very poorly for that.  The
programming language works great for displaying a number on an expensive
flatscreen monitor, but a fountain pen would at best throw an exception
(possibly a permanent one).

>Steve C. Lamb

-- 
-William "Billy" Tanksley