morning in Python

[inhahe]

"inhahe" <inhahe at gmail.com> wrote in message news:...
>
>>It is not clear that the first (cheapest best) human->computer language
>>is a computer language, though if two were orthonormal >in comparison
>>to life, Python's fine.  Not my first.
>
> The utterly dry, closed, logical, definitive, hierarchical, consistent, 
> determinate nature of a computer language is the only thing that will 
> facilitate anything useful on something as utterly stupid (and not to 
> mention logical, definite and determined) as a computer.
>
> I mean it, computers are /really/ stupid.  They're literally
> stupider than a bug.  We just like things we can control.
>
> The requisites I have for a computer language are:
>
> Efficiency (speed)
> Elegance of syntax
> Powerful (conceptual-wise) abstractions
>
> Python has delicious abstractions that make doing a lot of things really 
> easy and fun to think about.
> Stackless Python adds even more to that with continuations.
> Also Python's dynamic (another aspect of being powerful conceptual-wise)
> But most of all, I love its syntax.  Guido is the awesome.
> (BTW, I won't even use any language that uses := for assignment.  I just 
> refuse.  I don't care what the language has.)
>
> The speed/efficiency issue depends on the task at hand.  For most things I 
> use Python.  But assembly isn't out of the question, and it's fun to code 
> in.  I also find C/C++ an elegant language.  Most things just don't need 
> that speed.   And Python is 50 times easier to code in than C/C++ and 1000 
> times easier to debug in.
>
> I also like C#.
>
> My ideal language would be a natively compiling cross between C++ and 
> Python.  Objects declared with a type would be statically typed, objects 
> not declared with a type would be dynamically typed.  There would also be 
> keywords to declare that class names won't be reassigned and class 
> attributes won't be deleted.  Those attributes would be referred to by 
> offset, not hast table keys.  f

hast = hash