Re: pyton & perl

["Michael P. Soulier" <msoulier@storm.ca>]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:17:50PM +0200, Carel Fellinger wrote:
> 
> I don't think Python assumes the coder is a moron, nor does Eiffel,
> nor do you judging from your fine pigs-fly-just-fine quote <wink>.
> But I wonder what things you have in mind when you state that Python
> tie's your hands compared to say Perl?
> 
> Perl's integration of regexs comes to mind.  Okee, but I like the
> added readability.  What else?

    Thou shalt indent, so we'll make it a language feature and assume you
won't do it yourself. 
    Thou shalt use lexical variables, so we'll make it a language feature and
assume you won't do it yourself. Then we'll leave a big hole in this feature
and not allow locals in loops or sub-blocks. 

    The language seems designed for weak coders, to force them to use proper,
accepted techniques. This is good for new people, but it can burden the
experienced. 
    I like Python, but I find that Perl just "gets the job done" more often
for me. 

    BTW, I personally think that all low-level system tools should be written
in C, so that you don't have to install every scripting language under the Sun
to get tools working. The minimum install of Linux seems to steadily increase
just because people can't agree on what language to use, so they use them all. 

    rpm sucks, but at least it's in C. I'm told that working on Debian with a
broken Perl can get _very_ interesting. Luckily I guard my Perl carefully, as
I need it for work. 

    Mike

-- 
Michael P. Soulier <msoulier@storm.ca> 
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a
good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be
dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead." -- RFC 1925