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

[Courageous]

> >> >This is a conceptualization issue, and I suspect to a degree,
> >> >false. If "x" is merely a label, one can imagine x labeling
> >> >3 or x labelling red quite easily. Your analogy works because
> >> >you carefully framed it, but there's nothing at all to say that
> >> >your framing of it was right.
> >> >
> >> >To the contrary; while I can't prove it, I do believe it's wrong.
> >>
> >> Nobody expects a proof, but a just-as-carefully-framed
> >> counter-analogy would be a good start...
> >
> >I don't know why I'd need a carefully framed analogy at all.
> >The labelling concept speaks for itself, and in fact is the
> >way that some people teach python. It seems to be quite
> >intuitive.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I have no idea if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.
> Are you claiming that in real life the operations you can perform on/with a
> physical object are not determined by the type of the object?

Not at all. I'm claiming that using real life operations was itself
a framing of the problem which isn't at all correct. I'd argue
that referring to a python variable as an arbitrary label to any
object is something which is quite intuitive to the novice programmer.

These same novices will also intuitively understand that, in the
situation where the label is currently labelling an object of a
particular type, certain operations are inappropriate for that
object. Which is exactly how python behaves.



C/