Python is readable

[Steve Howell]

On Mar 22, 9:43 pm, MRAB <pyt... at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Maybe so, but is that an intrinsic feature of the language or just an
implementation detail?  Even if it's a somewhat intrinsic feature of
the language, how hard would it be to subsume Perl's Unicode goodness
into the best-of-breed language of all of Perl's cousins?