Python is readable
python at mrabarnett.plus.com
Fri Mar 23 05:43:48 CET 2012
On 23/03/2012 04:16, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Mar 22, 8:20 pm, rusi<rustompm... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 7:42 am, Steve Howell<showel... at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Do you think we'll always have a huge number of incompatible
>> > programming languages? I agree with you that it's a fact of life in
>> > 2012, but will it be a fact of life in 2062?
>> It will be a fact of life wherever Godels theorem is; which put
>> simplistically is: consistency and completeness cannot coexist. This
>> is the 'logic-generator' for the mess in programming languages.
>> Put in more general terms:
>> Completeness is an 'adding' process
>> Consistency is a 'subtracting' process
>> Running the two together, convergence is hopeless.
> Fair enough, but I don't think you can blame Godel's Theorem for the
> fact that JS, Ruby, Perl, and PHP all solve basically the same
> problems as Python in 2012. Can't we agree that at least *Perl* is
> redundant, and that the lingering existence of Perl 5 is an artifact
> of culture, legacy, and primitive experimentation (by future
> standards), not mathematical inevitability?
Perl's support for Unicode is much better than the others.
>> In programming language terms the pull is between simplicity and
> Sure, you can see this tension between Python (simplicity) and Ruby
> (expressivity). My idea of progress--way before 2062--is that you'd
> still have a spectrum of simplicity and expressivity, but the level of
> elegance and power throughout the spectrum would be elevated. There
> wouldn't be a monoculture, but the cream would eventually rise toward
> the top.
More information about the Python-list