Is there a programming language that is combination of Python andBasic?
castironpi at gmail.com
Sat Apr 18 12:12:20 CEST 2009
On Apr 18, 4:44 am, "Hendrik van Rooyen" <m... at microcorp.co.za> wrote:
> "baykus" <b...... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess I did not articulate myself well enough. I was just looking
> > for a toy to play around. I never suggested that Python+Basic would be
> > better than Python and everyone should use it. Python is Python and
> > Basic is Basic. I am not comparing them at all. I understand the
> > merits of Python but that does not mean I can play with ideas?
> Apparently this is not allowed by the CS thought police.
> The reasoning is based on an Argument from Authority,
> namely the Dijkstra link.
Boo, Appeal to Authority!
> to untangle some spaghetti code. He did not mention if
> the spaghetti was actually doing it's job, bug free, which
> IMO is the only rational test for the quality of a piece
I don't use 'rational' in the same way. Do you mean objective? Do
readability, brevity, simplicity, purity, etc. contribute to quality?
Is program quality equivalent (or identical) to code quality?
> of code, because it is the reason for its existence.
> The aesthetics are, like all aesthetics, a matter of opinion.
> I do not agree with the reasoning that effectively says:
> "If it is difficult to comprehend, it must be wrong"
Wrong no, but impractical, possibly or probably or almost certainly,
notwithstanding the subject-dependence of ease of comprehension.
Simple code is more future-resilient than that which is difficult to
comprehend, even holding the language (version) constant. It is a
matter of priorities, which have no objective right. The amount of
people that can comprehend a code structure is a competing value to
that of exploration, pioneering, research, and development. However,
even in simplest terms, some structures e.g. recursion, may be
difficult to comprehend, but that doesn't mean they would be better
More information about the Python-list