[Edu-sig] Refocusing on Capabilities (was PySqueak)

[kirby urner]

On 5/26/06, Paul D. Fernhout <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote:

> But, still, to agree with your sentiment, who would want to use a buggy
> new system that in addition to all of Python's warts (*)
>    http://www.amk.ca/python/writing/warts

Quite an old document (2003), many warts fixed.

> Still, it has weaknesses, especially for entry-level GUI programming.

I don't regard the "GUI weakness" as inherent in the Python language.

One could argue it's stronger at GUIs in the hands of a pro, because
able to work with a variety of libraries, vs. one built in solution.

Event-based GUI programming is hard to get right period.

> Makes me wonder why Python is still struggling with questions of what is
> the best GUI development tool for it?

Why do we need a "best" one?

> Or why we think CP4E is needed given Python exists?

Because languages don't just teach themselves?

> Python also fails in practice with modifying programs while they
> run, which becomes a big issue for intermediate-level programs and their
> programmers.

You're talking about event loop confusions, e.g. testing a Tk app
while running in Tk?

Using a text editor, with shell-based reload, allows GUI programs to
be debugged on the fly in my experience.

> Actually, another Python wart is that variable names in a function definition become
> part of the API (e.g. "myfunction(x=10, y=20)" which is a gross violation of the notion
> that a function definition, including local variables, should be independent of
> specifying how it is called.)

Please explain this notion further.  I thought one point of a function
definition was to define how to call it i.e. to specify what variables
to pass and how.  myfunction( ) and myfunction(4,3) would both work in
the above case -- Python is quite flexible in this way (not good?).

Kirby