Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Jon Clements Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Python is readable (OT) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 164 Message-ID: <33536194.2563.1332415082529.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlt15> References: <4f612b19$0$1379$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> <4f691f3d$0$29981$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87d386lmai.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <8a77bf8d-b12f-442b-a1a3-479b5d66d366@tx8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> <6af70db0-dc4a-48ee-9ee2-1a934846d5f2@r2g2000pbs.googlegroups.com> <32b8c4ae-2509-43df-abf0-0fb308be398f@oq7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> <4f6ae931$0$29883$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.156.91.130 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1332415196 27381 127.0.0.1 (22 Mar 2012 11:19:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:19:56 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4f6ae931$0$29883$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.156.91.130; posting-account=HLD_OAoAAAD-0RilNRZUjdKEwXt97Q9q User-Agent: G2/1.0 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:22013 On Thursday, 22 March 2012 08:56:17 UTC, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:35:16 -0700, Steve Howell wrote: >=20 > > On Mar 21, 11:06=A0am, Nathan Rice > > wrote: [snip]. >=20 > Different programming languages are good for different things because=20 > they have been designed to work in different problem/solution spaces.=20 > Although I dislike C with a passion, I do recognise that it is good for= =20 > when the programmer needs fine control over the smallest details. It is,= =20 > after all, a high-level assembler. Likewise for Forth, which lets you=20 > modify the compiler and language as you go. >=20 > Some languages are optimized for the compiler, some for the writer, and= =20 > some for the reader. So are optimized for numeric work, others for=20 > database access. Some are Jack-Of-All-Trades. Each language encourages=20 > its own idioms and ways of thinking about programming.=20 >=20 > When it comes to programming, I say, let a thousand voices shout out.=20 > Instead of imagining a single language so wonderful that every other=20 > language is overshadowed and forgotten, imagine that the single language= =20 > is the next Java, or C, or even for that matter Python, but whatever it= =20 > is, it's not ideal for the problems you care about, or the way you think= =20 > about them. Not so attractive now, is it? >=20 >=20 > > The optimistic view is that there will be some kind of inflection point > > around 2020 or so. I could imagine a perfect storm of good things > > happening, like convergence on a single browser platform, >=20 > You call that a perfect storm of good things. I call that sort of=20 > intellectual and software monoculture a nightmare. >=20 > I want a dozen browsers, not one of which is so common that web designers= =20 > can design for it and ignore the rest, not one browser so common that=20 > nobody dares try anything new. >=20 >=20 > > nearly > > complete migration to Python 3, further maturity of JVM-based languages= , > > etc., where the bar gets a little higher from what people expect from > > languages. Instead of fighting semicolons and braces, we start thinkin= g > > bigger. It could also be some sort of hardware advance, like screen > > resolutions that are so amazing they let us completely rethink our view= s > > on terseness, punctuation, code organization, etc. >=20 > And what of those with poor eyesight, or the blind? Are they to be=20 > excluded from your "bigger" brave new world? >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Steven On Thursday, 22 March 2012 08:56:17 UTC, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:35:16 -0700, Steve Howell wrote: >=20 > > On Mar 21, 11:06=A0am, Nathan Rice > > wrote: > >> As for syntax, we have a lot of "real" domain specific languages, such > >> as English, math and logic. They are vetted, understood and useful > >> outside the context of programming. =A0We should approach the discussi= on > >> of language syntax from the perspective of trying to define a unified > >> syntactical structure for real these DSLs. =A0 =A0Ideally it would all= ow > >> representation of things in a familiar way where possible, while > >> providing an elegant mechanism for descriptions that cut across domain= s > >> and eliminating redundancy/ambiguity. =A0This is clearly possible, tho= ugh > >> a truly successful attempt would probably be a work of art for the > >> ages. > >=20 > > If I'm reading you correctly, you're expressing frustration with the > > state of language syntax unification in 2012. You mention language in = a > > broad sense (not just programming languages, but also English, math, > > logic, etc.), but even in the narrow context of programming languages, > > the current state of the world is pretty chaotic. >=20 > And this is a good thing. Programming languages are chaotic because the= =20 > universe of programming problems is chaotic, and the strategies available= =20 > to solve those problems are many and varied. >=20 > Different programming languages are good for different things because=20 > they have been designed to work in different problem/solution spaces.=20 > Although I dislike C with a passion, I do recognise that it is good for= =20 > when the programmer needs fine control over the smallest details. It is,= =20 > after all, a high-level assembler. Likewise for Forth, which lets you=20 > modify the compiler and language as you go. >=20 > Some languages are optimized for the compiler, some for the writer, and= =20 > some for the reader. So are optimized for numeric work, others for=20 > database access. Some are Jack-Of-All-Trades. Each language encourages=20 > its own idioms and ways of thinking about programming.=20 >=20 > When it comes to programming, I say, let a thousand voices shout out.=20 > Instead of imagining a single language so wonderful that every other=20 > language is overshadowed and forgotten, imagine that the single language= =20 > is the next Java, or C, or even for that matter Python, but whatever it= =20 > is, it's not ideal for the problems you care about, or the way you think= =20 > about them. Not so attractive now, is it? >=20 >=20 > > The optimistic view is that there will be some kind of inflection point > > around 2020 or so. I could imagine a perfect storm of good things > > happening, like convergence on a single browser platform, >=20 > You call that a perfect storm of good things. I call that sort of=20 > intellectual and software monoculture a nightmare. >=20 > I want a dozen browsers, not one of which is so common that web designers= =20 > can design for it and ignore the rest, not one browser so common that=20 > nobody dares try anything new. >=20 >=20 > > nearly > > complete migration to Python 3, further maturity of JVM-based languages= , > > etc., where the bar gets a little higher from what people expect from > > languages. Instead of fighting semicolons and braces, we start thinkin= g > > bigger. It could also be some sort of hardware advance, like screen > > resolutions that are so amazing they let us completely rethink our view= s > > on terseness, punctuation, code organization, etc. >=20 > And what of those with poor eyesight, or the blind? Are they to be=20 > excluded from your "bigger" brave new world? >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Steven Completely not related to this discussion, but, I just have to say to Steve= n, I could not have expressed that better.=20 +1 QOTW (albeit a long one) Jon.