A little disappointed so far

[Aahz]

In article <ad496f8.0305182306.69ec5cb0 at posting.google.com>,
Ville Vainio <vvainio at tp.spt.fi> wrote:
>aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote in message news:<ba9b2m$6mj$1 at panix3.panix.com>...
>>
>> But yes, for quick'n'dirty shell scripts, Perl will always beat Python.
>
>How come? I feel that scripts can be written quicker in Python, one of
>the reasons being that exception handling means you don't have to
>check for errors. Perl script might have less characters, but it's
>mostly punctuation which is slower to type anyway. And if you want to
>get real dirty, you can always go with sh.

<shrug>  I'm just reporting what I hear from people who are experts in
both Perl and Python for replacing shell scripts.  I agree that it's not
much of an edge and that Python's readability makes up for it, but not
having to type three or four lines of imports does make a difference.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"In many ways, it's a dull language, borrowing solid old concepts from
many other languages & styles:  boring syntax, unsurprising semantics,
few automatic coercions, etc etc.  But that's one of the things I like
about it."  --Tim Peters on Python, 16 Sep 93