Is this a true statement?

[Grant Edwards]

On 24 Jun 2001 20:40:01 GMT, Tim Daneliuk <tundra at tundraware.com> wrote:

>I also have no doubt that there are some things that are highly
>impractical to "do" in Python and that you can also find such
>an example for any language.

What is "practical" for a particular language is often a
function of available memory and processor speed.

I remember when programming for many embedded applications in a
high level language was deemed impractical.  What's practical
when you've got 128 bytes of RAM, 512 bytes of ROM, and a
100KHz processor is different than what's practical with 8M of
RAM, 4M of ROM and a 44MHz processor.

Implimenting a Python byte-code interpreter in kernel-space on
a mondern Unix system wouldn't be that hard. The things that
low-level device drivers (the ones that diddle hardware) do are
simple and low level, and C is pretty well suited for the task.

Mid-level stuff (e.g. filesystem manipulation and network
protocols) would be a lot more suitable for Python
implimentation.

>But to the larger point of the original poster's question: I cannot
>conceive of ANY reason to use C++ for ANYTHING and I've felt that way
>from the day Stroustrup first exposed it to the rest of us.

My feelings exactly.  Use C when you have to, Python or
Modula-3 when you can.

>It is an abomination on the face of programming, there were and
>are much better choices if you insist on using OO (which I do
>not think is the Silver Bullet is has been proclaimed to be),
>and it has the worst of all worlds: the complexity of an OO
>infrastructure, the ease of self-annihilation of a systems
>language, and a syntax so awful as to be virtually unreadable.

Hear, hear.

(or is it "here, here"?)

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I always have fun
                                  at               because I'm out of my
                               visi.com            mind!!!