[NTLUG:Discuss] Python Article by Eric S Raymond

[Kenneth Loafman]

Carl Haddick wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 01:52:12PM -0500, Val Harris wrote:
>> On this list, we occasionally see requests for programming language 
>> recommendations.  Here is an interesting article about Python, written 
>> by one who has wrestled more than a few project past the faults of its 
>> chosen language:
>>
>>    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3882
> 
> First, disclaimers - I've long been a Python patriot, and I'm just a
> lurker here so feel free to take me with a grain of salt.  For some
> reason, this just seemed like a good thing to rattle on about.
> 
> I, too, seek no flame war.  Perl is a proven tool with awesome
> potential.

I've got experience in both for many years.  The strength, and to me the
major weakness, of Perl is that TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than One Way To
Do It).  That was the strength of PL/1 as well, you could program PL/1
in COBOL, FORTRAN, and even in PL/1, depending on where you came from.
That means that you had to be truly aware of the complete syntax of the
language and all its aberrations if you wanted to read other folks code.

Python is developing some of those faults, but so far the syntax of the
language itself is mostly straightforward.  I'm hoping they keep it that
way for a long while, at least till I win the Lotto and retire.

The major strength of any language is its libraries and Perl seems to
have a library for just about everything you could envision, and some
you probably never would.  Python is catching up on that front.

I've written C since 1978, when I learned it while sitting in front of a
CPM system with K&R at my side.  I've written in more languages than I
would dare put on a resume and have found that any project can be done
in any language.  I've seen Assemblers in COBOL, FORTRAN, and ALGOL68,
Linkers in COBOL and FORTRAN, and all sorts of other odd combinations.
In my opinion, the robustness, readability and maintainability of all of
these was more dependent upon the quality of the programmer than on the
features of the language.

The language is only a tool to use to translate an idea into a program.
 Some tools "fit" better than others and some programmers are better
mechanics than others.  Really good programmers are hard to find.

...Ken