Article of interest: Python pros/cons for the enterprise

Jeff Schwab jeff at
Sun Feb 24 04:45:45 CET 2008

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Jeff Schwab <jeff at> writes:
>> One great thing about C is that
>> a programmer can realistically hope to know the entire language
>> definition; maybe Guido would like the same to be true of Python.
> C is horrendously complicated, with zillions of obscure traps.  C++ is
> even worse;

Who feeds you this stuff?

> there's actually a published book specifically about C++
> pitfalls.

Mercy, a whole book?

My current favorite book of language-specific pitfalls:

Wait a few years.  A Python Puzzlers book will surely be on the shelves 
eventually.  Here are some of the top results when Googling "python 

Maybe C++ needs better pub.  The guy who wrote the first of those 
articles says elswhere on his web site:

     "My Python pitfalls article seems to be a popular read. It's
     written from a somewhat negative viewpoint: things that can go
     wrong. (Of course, that's useful; you're never going to do these
     things wrong again. Right? ;-) To counter-balance this, I think
     there should an article with a more positive viewpoint as well.
     So I was wondering, if I could collect 10 "anti-pitfalls"; parts
     of the Python language that are especially clever, elegant and

Good luck with that.  Once language Y comes along, there will be a 
million reasons people believe that language X was downright unusable.

> Python is underspecified but freer of weird hazards in
> practice.
> C and C++ should practically be outlawed at this point.  

On what grounds?  "I don't approve of the programming language you're 
using.  Cease and desist.  Nyah!"

More information about the Python-list mailing list