Python handles globals badly.

Mark Lawrence breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Sep 9 22:15:49 CEST 2015


On 09/09/2015 20:57, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> On 09-09-2015 18:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:09 am, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
>>
>>> You know, it is a pointless exercise to try and downplay programming
>>> languages (any programming language) that has proven its worth by being
>>> generally adopted by the programming community. Adoption is the sign of
>>> a respected and well designed language.
>>
>> Counter-examples: PHP and C.
>>
>> Adoption of programming languages is driven by many things, technical
>> excellence and careful design are not even in the top 10. Most of them are
>> social in nature, particularly "what is everyone else using?". Network
>> effects dominate: you could design the perfect language, but if nobody else
>> uses it, nobody will use it.
>
> You paint a dim picture of the computer science ecosystem. You almost
> make it look like we are a bunch of fashionists. There is some truth to
> what you are saying, but not to the level you are implying. "Technical
> excellence not being on the top 10" is just a blanket statement that
> does not address the constant search for better programming languages.
>

If the designers of languages spent more time considering business 
benefits rather than better languages, then I believe we'd end up with 
better languages.  However that depends on your (plural) definition of 
"better".

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence



More information about the Python-list mailing list