Steve Lamb dijo [Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 05:40:18PM -0800]:
> Python's diametrically opposed philosophy is much better. There should
> ideally be only one obvious way to do something. With that in mind the
> language itself is much smaller. Concepts are tied to one, maybe two
> syntax. So in learning both at once, especially by reading examples, it is
> much easier.
...I don't know, there are points both for and against it - but I
think I must concede there is some truth in your reasoning.
> Finally there is the simple fact that Python is interactive. There
> have been many cases where I have a window on the left with my code and a
> window on the right sitting in Python where I hash out my ideas because I'm
> not quite sure how things are going to flow yet or exactly how the syntax
> works. I can play with the syntax, keep my data fairly static, work out
> each step in detail and as I do put that in the script on the left. IE,
> nothing quite compares to learning how slices work across all kinds of
> sequences other thank just playing with them like this:
Yup, that is something I always found lacking in Perl. In fact, I run
this very often:
--------------
#!/usr/bin/perl
my $count = 0;
print '-> ';
while (my $lin = <STDIN>) {
my @r = eval $lin;
print "R: @r\n" if @r;
print "E: $@\n" if $@;
print '-> ';
undef $@;
$count++;
}
END {
print "Leaving Perl Interpreter.\n",
"$count statements executed.\nHave fun out there!\n";
}
--------------
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.cx - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature