Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=kZ66iMiMrG5Rx01eb/F/XwQKK5JDJD9fVmReaDM4CF7xUo/VrEdLztpEhsW12R1Rae 0F54kjuXT3nYeiXPrzNr+hLNPqAUZTRK+9+edSHrnqFS9l5eg6CJP59Daq+TkpUL3qT0 tEJmD1bZ/IKpKqOum6BMs7bTLDDq0FiATpex8=
From: "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com>
To: <python-list@python.org>
References: <80d59383-36a3-4744-85c4-1a0577f1d3a6@dr5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com><BANLkTinviKm4A232=niyBCsqpKeazyWm=g@mail.gmail.com><BANLkTik+iBBgGBfZruE4BLoq0pz01sj9BQ@mail.gmail.com><BANLkTi=dyW-ZW=bEfSZmsHDjzo34+3rHrA@mail.gmail.com><BANLkTim0JVK-4yMxbjV+MC6TSh3k8tYPhg@mail.gmail.com><9CDC4B2CD1F445E994119A50F65155DF@teddy><BANLkTi=5RytpHpP1ausX9n064vkhDHz+FA@mail.gmail.com><12225671E9654FECB49613D915FAEC19@teddy><irbn0t$t8d$1@dough.gmane.org><21A740B7AC6644248476DFADDF726C73@octavian><ircvbn$nlu$1@dough.gmane.org><629DAC3611EA49B0A36BCF70151CDE2F@octavian><BANLkTi=Cnf49yvW01_E1sRQcOLLQxEFJFg@mail.gmail.com><57C0AB91B42743E89456ACCC8751CF78@octavian><BANLkTi=N-b4-3HdaRSMy9kk8S_xu3uBkQg@mail.gmail.com><2C6966D5AB6541E3BCE920FE7883A05B@octavian> <20110524060535.64cfa0ec.darcy@druid.net>
Subject: Re: Why did Quora choose Python for its development?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 19:10:50 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.2024.1306253938.9059.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 53
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.94.164.166
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:6152

From: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:00:14 +0300
> "Octavian Rasnita" <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, again, in Perl is just:
>>=20
>> %d =3D @l;
>>=20
>> Please tell me if Python has a syntax which is more clear than this =
for=20
>> doing this thing.
>=20
> How is that clear?  "Shorter" !=3D "clearer."  A Python programmer
> looking at that sees line noise.  A Perl programmer looking at "d =3D =
dict
> ([a])" (or even "d =3D dict(a,)") sees something that has something to =
do
> with creating a dictionary.  At least he would know in which section =
of
> the manual to look for more information.


The Perl programmers usually don't need to look in the dictionary when =
they are creating programs.
Perl is harder to learn, but it is easier to use.

> Are Perl programmers aware of some imminent worldwide shortage of
> electrons that Python programmers are not?  Why is there this =
obsession
> with shortness?


A shorter code can be typed faster, obviously, and there are fewer =
possibility of appearing errors, but the shortage is not the most =
important thing.

The most important thing is that the chars @, $, or % are the same in =
all languages, while the English words used by the languages that use =
many such words are harder to remember especially for the non-native =
English speakers. Python is not a very bad language from this =
perspective like Java is though. :-)

In Perl the programmers can also use English words for some things, like =
$OUTPUT_AUTOFLUSH, but personally I never liked those things. Using $| =
instead is much shorter and clear, because I don't need to remember the =
English words like autoflush, or maybe it was just flush, or it was =
autoflush_output, or output_flush... something like $| can't be =
forgotten.

Yes, I know that the guys from Google would never like that since these =
chars are not "Googleable" :-)

Octavian