Python advocacy

[Brett g Porter]

"Donn Cave" <donn at u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:89p2kd$1arc$1 at nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> Quoth "Brett g Porter" <BgPorter at NOacmSPAM.org>:
> ...
> That's a good perspective, and I don't think it's really so different
> from what I read in the article.  It's kind of hard to take an advocacy
> position with an ``I'm OK, you're OK'' style, because we have to talk
> about struggling against inertia and paths of least resistance to get
> to a better place.  If we're all in a fine place now, what's the point?
But that's not what he said at all, viz:
". C++ and Perl have no such excuse. They are cryptic and complex because of
an overemphasis on backwards compatibility and plain, old-fashioned poor
design. "

"Where languages like Basic, TCL, and Logo were artificially limiting, C++
and Perl are, in my opinion, artificially complex. Obviously there are many
smart people out there preparing to send me an email claiming that the
complexity "buys" them something valuable. I think that the cost is high. "

"Personally, I cannot stand this design aesthetic, because it divides the
world into "programmers" and "non-programmers"."

You'll have to forgive me, my academic training was as a composer, so that's
the pool I always dip into for analogies -- this argument strikes me as:

"Tape recorders are better than pianos because it's too darn hard to become
a good piano player. It divides the world into 'musicians' and
'non-musicians'.  The piano suffers from an overemphasis on being backwardly
compatible with the clavichord."

Obviously, Paul is entitled to his view that the cost of proficiency in C++
is too high. As a proficient C++ programmer, I have to disagree. I  can't
imagine writing industrial-strength apps solely in Python (and I do mean
industrial -- I've got applications running in steel mills).

I agree with all the slams against Perl, though. KILL!! KILL!!