Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
Wed Jan 21 07:08:23 CET 2009
James Mills <prologic at shortcircuit.net.au> writes:
> >> Actually - in case you are perfectly unaware - programming
> >> languages -do not- bare meaning to such systems nor have
> >> an impact on their suitability or unsuitability.
> > Er, who do you think you are trying to fool, saying things like that?
> > Maybe just yourself.
> Paul unless you can prove otherwise, refuting my statement
> is useless. Claiming that Python may or may not be suitable
> for safety critical systems or large scale systems is unfounded.
"Programming languages -do not- bare meaning to such systems nor have
an impact on their suitability or unsuitability" (I presume you mean
"bear" not "bare") is a far stronger and stupider statement than one
about Python's suitability or lack thereof. Most informed users would
agree that Python is more suitable than some languages for that sort
of application and less suitable than others. Only a fool would
propose that all languages are equally suitable.
More information about the Python-list