Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python)

88888 Dihedral dihedral88888 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 11 18:51:00 CET 2013


On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-11-10, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
> 
> >> On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 
> >>> >
> 
> >>> > * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever
> 
> >>> > writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> One of the worst coding experiences I ever had was trying to build an
> 
> >> app for a Roku media player.  They have a home-grown language called
> 
> >> BrightScript.  Barf.
> 
> >
> 
> > And this is exactly why I was so strongly against the notion of
> 
> > developing an in-house scripting language. It may be a lot of work to
> 
> > evaluate Lua, Python, JavaScript, and whatever others we wanted to
> 
> > try, but it's a *lot* less work than making a new language that
> 
> > actually is worth using.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I am baffled that people insist on doing the latter. Designing a
> 
> limited /data/ language is often a good idea; designing something
> 
> which eventually will need to become Turing-complete is not.

Python is designed with the VM 
interpreter to execute compiled 
byte codes.

Of course, C/C++/JAVA are lower 
level languages not designed in 
this way.

To remedy the efficient part, 
cython and C-extensions are available
in Python. 





More information about the Python-list mailing list