Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.004 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.99; '*S*': 0.00; 'read.': 0.03; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'odd': 0.07; 'beginners': 0.09; 'merging': 0.09; 'received:80.91': 0.09; 'received:80.91.229': 0.09; 'received:gmane.org': 0.09; 'received:list': 0.09; 'to)': 0.09; 'gui': 0.12; 'template': 0.14; '23,': 0.16; 'bewildering': 0.16; 'magic': 0.16; 'received:80.91.229.3': 0.16; 'received:plane.gmane.org': 0.16; 'worst': 0.16; 'sat,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; '(not': 0.18; 'basically': 0.19; 'meant': 0.20; 'example': 0.22; 'aug': 0.22; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'lets': 0.24; 'new,': 0.24; 'nearly': 0.26; 'player': 0.26; 'header:X -Complaints-To:1': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'chris': 0.29; 'external': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'easier': 0.31; 'markup': 0.31; "i'd": 0.34; 'problem': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'form.': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'in.': 0.36; 'next': 0.36; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'little': 0.38; 'does': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'received:org': 0.40; 'simple,': 0.60; 'simple': 0.61; 'kind': 0.63; 'more': 0.64; 'here': 0.66; 'fact,': 0.69; 'music': 0.75; 'compose': 0.84; 'correcting': 0.84; 'horrible': 0.84; 'imagining': 0.84; 'proves': 0.84; 'weaker': 0.84; '9:00': 0.91 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: python-list@python.org From: "Neil D. Cerutti" Subject: Re: Python vs C++ Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 09:01:28 -0400 References: <87fvgoj2i8.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87siko9tlq.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <53F7B870.2010909@gmail.com> <5c595a04-1154-47fd-ba05-05131f3a0bb7@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: jackman.norwich.edu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1408971708 news.xs4all.nl 2894 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:38377 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:76979 On 8/23/2014 9:00 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: >> Here is an example (not identical but analogous to) where markup+compile is >> distinctly weaker than wysiwyg: >> >> You can use lilypond to type music and the use a midi player to play it >> But lilypond does not allow playing and seeing-in-realtime >> >> WYSIWYG editors allow that -- can make a huge difference to beginners >> who find music hard to read. > > I don't buy that it's weaker. In fact, I'd say this proves that markup > is distinctly better - just a little harder to do "Hello, world" in. > > At best, the simple GUI makes it easier to do something > straight-forward, and then basically lets you drop to the more > complicated form. At worst, it makes it easier to do the very simple, > and nearly impossible to do the more complicated. The worst part of using a WYSIWIG program is the frustration of correcting a bewildering problem when some kind of autoformatting magic goes wrong. One odd example is when using Word to compose template documents meant for merging with external data. The markup+compile phase takes on a whole new, horrible meaning. My ears are turning red just imagining the next time I have to do it. -- Neil Cerutti