Python vs. Io

Christopher Koppler klapotec at chello.at
Fri Jan 30 00:41:33 CET 2004


On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:21:19 -0500, cookedm+news at physics.mcmaster.ca
(David M. Cooke) wrote:

>At some point, LittleDanEhren at yahoo.com (Daniel Ehrenberg) wrote:
>
[snip-a-lot]
>
>> For embedding, Io doesn't have to use Py_ALL_CAPS, instead it just
>> uses IoCamelCase, which looks much better. Interfaces to C are much
>> more object oriented.
>
>Ok, these two points are window-dressing: minor spelling and
>punctuation issues (which seems to be what most language wars are about).
>
>Heck, use boost::python for C++ interfaces; those function names are
>even shorter. Or use pyrex to generate wrappers, writing them in a
>Pythonesque language.
>
>> Many users of Io (myself included) have switched over from Python for
>> these reasons.
>>
>> I guess there are still the obvious advantages of Python over Io,
>> including
>> *large community
>> *more bindings to stuff
>
>Yep. That's a *big* difference, I'd say.

Using any language (other than a Lisp) which is sufficiently powerful
mostly comes down to personal preference regarding syntax. Library and
community support will of course grow for new languages if enough
people find it 'fits their minds' better than anything previously
available.

>
>> *strict coding conventions
>> *inflexible so everything is the same
>
>Can you elaborate a bit on why Python is inflexible? I find Python to
>be extremely flexible.

If inflexibility means not being able to arbitrarily change the
syntax, then I'm all for it, because it does help consistency and
readability, which I like very much in my programs, especially when
not working on them alone... Python seems to have found a good middle
ground between strictness and dynamism.
If I wanted a 'flexible' language, I'd use Lisp, or Forth.


--
Christopher



More information about the Python-list mailing list