Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:42:47 +0100, Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> said:
> Le jeudi 26 janvier 2006 à 20:04 -0500, David Nusinow a écrit :
>> On the other hand, adding languages only adds to the complexity and
>> tools that a Debian developer should know to be effective.
> Despite the days of nightmare I have spent on perl, I couldn't claim
> to be "effective" with perl. When I have an issue with a perl script
> in Debian, I call for help from another developer
I can see how you find developing challenging, then.
> When there are hundreds of developers, you can always find one with
> the skills and some time to help. This is true the other way round:
> there are now enough developers skilled with python, so that a
> developer with a python issue can call for help.
Ruby. Scheme. Haskell. (wish java were free). Smalltalk. Ada?
> Perl is a completely absurd and counter-intuitive language.
But python is worse, nyah nyah.
God. Is this supposed to be rational technical discussion, or
an exercise in jejune mud slinging.
> When you're used to clear and strict types, you have to wonder how
> that dumb software will interpret it and what will happen at each
> line of code. Writing code in perl is a pain that takes me 10 times
> longer than writing it in python - for the things I manage to
> write. I'm not event thinking about understanding most perl scripts
> out there: the TIMTOWTDI philosophy leads to as many kinds of
> programming as there are perl programmers. In other words: you
> cannot only learn perl, you have to think in perl. Which is a very
> hard task for people used to structured languages.
I guess it is mud slinging.
manoj
too tired to sling mud no mo'
--
Tis man's perdition to be safe, when for the truth he ought to die.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: