"Douglas Alan" <nessus at mit.edu> wrote ... > "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes: > > > Two interestingly embricated claims. I do see the interest in > > separate, Python-like languages such as PyHTML -- domain specific > > and all. But there seems to be an underlying hypothesis here that > > it's best to do EVERYTHING in ONE language, including implementing > > other ones on top of it. > > And a wonderful hypothesis it is. > I don't agree. > By doing so, you lower the barier to allowing people to accomplish > what they want to accomplish. Isn't that what a high-level language > is all about? > Yes. But the experience of PL/1 would tend to suggest that the all-embracing suitable-for-all-problems language tends to become a dog's breakfast. The phrase which comes to mind here is "jack of all trades, master of none". I suspect Ada might be the same, but since I've never used it this is only speculation. > > One of Python's specific design choices was to reject that: it was > > deliberately designed to cooperate well with other tools (and > > languages in particular) instead. > > Embracing one does not mean rejecting the other, since any language > designer with any sense realizes that even if the goal of being able > to do everything in one language is a noble one, that it is not yet a > practical goal to achieve today. Allowing a language to cooperate > well with other languages, while also nibling away at the goal of > being able to do more and more within the language, is the > pragmatist's way. > Well, again I find myself in less-than-total agreement here. I'd much rather have a toolkit than a Swiss Army knife with 113 blades. > > It seems to me no convincing case has ever been made that a single > > language MUST do everything well. Many widespread languages aim at > > that -- Common Lisp, Dylan, C++, Eiffel, Java, just to name a few. > > Python doesn't. > > > I prefer Python. > Well I prefer Python too, but I don't think it needs to be good at everything. > Well, you clearly don't prefer Python as much as me, since I'd prefer > to use it for everything. > Yes, but at least now you know *why* I wouldn't prefer to use it for everything. I believe (and think Alex does too) that to add too many features would lead Python away from its present elegant simplicity (never forgetting the "print >>" wart, about which I will bug the implementation team forever, since I don't believe for a second they will destroy backwards compatibilty by taking it out). > |>oug > > P.S. Btw, I never "clamored" for any changes. I merely mused on what > would make Python a better language. You, as much as anyone, should > understand the difference. Yeah, but when twenty people muse publicly they tend to get grouped together even though individually their approaches may be quite reasonable. one-man's-muse-is-another-man's-clamor-ly y'rs - steve
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4