Python is readable

[Steve Howell]

On Mar 22, 7:29 am, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r... at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Chris Angelico <ros... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Nathan Rice
> > <nathan.alexander.r... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Having one core language with
> >> many DSLs that can interoperate is infinitely better than having many
> >> languages that cannot.  A language designed in such a way would also
> >> prevent issues like the Python 2 -> 3 fiasco, because two versions of
> >> a DSL can be separate, and code can reference them independently while
> >> being able to interoperate.
>
> > This is either utterly impossible, or already available, depending on
> > your point of view.
>
> Of course it is already available.  It is called the laws of physics.
> Everything we know of inter-operates in the context of physical
> reality perfectly.
>
> > To have an infinitely-configurable program, you must make its
> > configuration equivalent to writing code. There is already an
> > infinitely-configurable program in Unix: "gcc config.c; ./a.out" takes
> > a simple-format text file called "config.c" and processes it.
>
> It is true that infinite configuration requires that the configuration
> be specified in the language of the program.  What's the problem?
>
> > You want infinite DSLs? Behold!
>
> > $ ./module1 | ./module2 | ./module3 | ./module4
>
> > Each one has a shebang that tells you what they are (Python 2, Python
> > 3, something else entirely). There's a very strict interoperability
> > protocol between the modules - they pass information around through
> > stdout and stdin. You can write any module in any language, and you
> > can rewrite module1 for Python 3 without affecting any other or the
> > invocation sequence.
>
> It has always been possible to get from one point in space to another
> point in space in finite time.  Was the invention of the automobile
> was redundant and unimportant?  Obviously not, the characteristics of
> the process matter.
>

The funny thing about the "automobile" is that, for all its impact,
it's really just a better horse.

Imagine in 1750 three futurists pondering how people in the future
could solve the problem of physical separation:

  Futurist A: We'll breed a better horse.
  Futurist B: No, we should build a mechanical machine that's faster
than a horse.
  Futurist C: What if we make it so that two people 10,000 miles away
from each other can talk to each other like they're next door?

The ironic thing is that telecommunication was more or less solved in
the late 1800s or so, but in the 21 century, we still talk about
"horsepower" for our people-moving machines.

I think in 2012, when it comes to programming languages, we're still
mostly breeding better horses.  Nothing wrong with that, just an
observation.