Why python???

[Michael Peuser]

"Alex Martelli" <aleax at aleax.it>
>
> >> Moore's Law is working in favour of higher level languages even harder
> >> than it's working in favour of free but highly efficient OS's.
> >
> > There are two aspects:
> > (1) More power for same price - this works in favour of 'complex
software'
> > (2) Same power for less money - this works in favor of 'cheap software'
>
> And software is developed more cheaply in higher level languages than
> in lower level ones.  Therefore, both [1] and [2] work in favour of HLL's,
> which let you develop more complex software for the same price or the
> same software (software of the same functional complexity, but more
> often than not somewhat hungrier of hardware resources) faster & cheaper.

No one will ever dispute this. The question is however: How much HLL is
enough? Why are purely functional languages practically unknown?

[Some absulutely convincing remarks and well structured destription of the
current situation on the server market by Alex]

My original point in answer to Facundu Bastidas' remark was: IF the hardware
costs had not dropped down to the same order as (base!) software costs, than
Linux would not have had any chance! This is still what I think with my zero
knowledege.


My other point was that there nothing like that is going on in the software
development business. The price of tools is of no significance. It is the
(expected increase of productivity) The DoD Ada is the best example I can
think of.

We have not yet reached the situation, where the vendor includea all the
hardware you need when you buy a program.

> >> Not necessarily.  If common programmers only knew machine language,
> >> it would still be cheaper to use any available high-level language,
> >> say COBOL, even if you needed to supply training for it (it's not
> >> hard to teach COBOL to somebody who knows assembly, anyway -- the
> >> reverse is harder).
> > I am on your way; maybe they more probably would be trained for some
> > "macro language". This is no 'paradigm change'. Most C++ programmers (I
> > know what I say!) write C programs.

> History proves you are wrong: in practice, COBOL was what took over
> the market for business application development, *NOT* macro assembly
> as you claim would "more probably" happen.  A paradigm change, to be
> sure, but it's what DID win historically.  By ignoring history, as
> you're doing, you may not be doomed to repeat it, but you sure do
> handicap grievously your chances to predict the future.

Please! I do nor ignore history! I hypothetically predicted something what I
know did not happen, but what would have been more plausible. It did not
happen because the number of programmers was small at that time. In fact not
COBOL took over but RPG, to correct your historical background.

> (And no crap about "marketing" being responsible for it, please: in
> the '60 the _only_ heavily marketed programming language was IBM's
> PL/I... and it lost to not-heavily-marketed COBOL and Fortran, as
> its technical complexity was just too high on too many issues, in
> terms of both programmer training and productivity, and implementation
> complexity and resulting bugginess).

Yes.

A > Similarly, using Python can lower costs even
A> if you factor in training costs (again, teaching Python to good
A> Cobol programmers is quite easy -- other higher-level languages may
A> not be _quite_ as cheap in these terms, admittedly, but still the
A> economics aren't _hugely_ different).

In most companies you do not train programmers but (try to) hire experienced
staff.

> Those practices which do increase productivity do tend to get used
> more: OOP, RAD and configuration control are heavily prevalent today,
> and XP and test-driven design are making great strides.

Yes.

> > Python is by no means a "perfect" alternative to  - lets say: DOT-NET
> > and C#  - the advantages are difficult to see for persons in power or -
I
> > mentiones the tool costs - are of minor relevance.

> Python may get in "sneakily" -- because programmers love it or because
> a desperate pennypincher has no alternative to saving "minor-relevance"
> money as it can't attack the major-relevant budget items anyway -- and
> proves itself enough that even "persons in power" (which aren't _always_
> total idiots) see its advantages.  See the "Python Success Stories"
> for many examples.  As the evidence accumulates, Python also starts
> getting in non-sneakily, by executive decision rather than by the above
> means -- and keeps proving itself.

We shall wish that.

> And Moore's Law is absolutely crucial to this relentless trend.

I see no reason why not C# and .NET will be the winners!?
...
> > I should as well like to discuss your aspect of programmer's
productivity.
> > This is an important  factor. However all investigations show that
> > programmer's productivity is an unmeasurable quantity.
>
> Once again, you are totally wrong, and moreover, you are wrong in an
> assertion that you choose to express in the broadest, unqualified terms.

I was  very well aware of what I was saying ;-)

> Lutz Prechelt's study, the best-known example of empirical investigation
> of programmer productivity, show Python and Perl ruling the roost, and
> grinding e.g. Java into the dust.
Bu some coincidence I came over that study some months ago (googling for
some Python matter). I was impressed by the thouroughness of the study but
not of the result. The study concentrated on coding and some string/pattern
matching related task
There will be different results when doing embedded applications

> This only confirms in a specific case
> study the well-know results of the Function Point community: the higher
> level a language, the least amount of code per FP it needs, the higher
> the productivity in all phases of coding and maintenance.

Coding is agreed, maintenance is still questionable.

>
> >  .... what the programmer likes to do. If he or she would like to
> > program in Python everything would be fine. However most or today's
> > programmers like to do what is called "mainstream" (circular reasoning,
I
> > know) That is a little bit document driven development, some UML charts,
> > Visual Studio, something inbetween C and C++, C# and Java, and MS
Office.
>
> As long as those are the skills that employers request, those are the
> skills most employees will cultivate, of course.

This is one of the problems, thus:.
> > This can only change if there is competition. Competition means a Killer
> > Application that could be sold for half the price of the nearest
> > competitor because the developing costs had been such low!
> >
> > Do it with Python then and show it to the world  ;-)

> It's been done more than once, and it's being done again as we speak,
> many times over -- again, see the Python Success Stories.  Google is
> an example that didn't choose to submit all details of its Python
> success -- but Norvig, Google's search-quality director, has stated
> unambiguously what a crucial role Python has played and still plays
> in Google's amazing ongoing success.  The Open-Source Applications
> Foundation is doing the same with Chandler, a personal information
> manager application.

It is not clear whether this is just a niche market like e.g. MATLAB.

> Once again, it appears that your assertions are based on essentially
> zero knowledge about the subjects you're prattling about.

Well, it appears so....

Kindly
Michael P