Path: csiph.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed1.swip.net!uio.no!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!nzpost1.xs4all.net!not-for-mail
To: python-list@python.org
From: Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Subject: Re: Python handles globals badly.
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 15:53:09 +1000
References: <c3363$547e74fe$5419aafe$24179@news.ziggo.nl> <86fa425b-d660-45ba-b0f7-3beebdec8e14@googlegroups.com> <CALwzid=sokeEcPA17yP=Npscg4VSJ6AaF_AMn13ypCr-BtVgwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK_ErkjJ8ZYhtAoOC0p-DRpd5JQfb6aGWgU2T6uW5ZLtxjY2Mg@mail.gmail.com> <55EE9EEC.1060907@rece.vub.ac.be> <CAK_ErkgQPBxSc+zs7c2tGpGgQQ7s_SsAyJFB6qwcvJg68B9g0w@mail.gmail.com> <55EEDD37.5090602@gmx.com> <CAK_ErkjdWXG7aQ=Q23tq-ZVuyX_etdrC939WtCAPkeu2_5SZ8A@mail.gmail.com> <55EF86BA.4050502@gmx.com> <85y4gg8js0.fsf@benfinney.id.au> <55EF9CBB.4070809@gmx.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ucclytGK915F3ydZKweonmtk0BI=
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.249.1441778018.8327.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 55
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:96162

Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmx.com> writes:

> On 09-09-2015 02:26, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmx.com> writes:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > I can think of numerous widely-adpoted languages that disprove that
> > assertion, by nevertheless being poorly-designed languages that are
> > loathed by the vast majority of programmers who use them.
>
> I'll have to agree to an extent. And you did remind me of PHP. So
> there's that.
>
> But in a way PHP served an important purpose in its time.

Important, yes.

> In any case, it stands that, unless a programming language is so
> ruined by bad design choices it is unusable, there is some kind of
> merit to its ability to solve computational problems.

That's a *very much* lower bar than your earlier claim I responded to:
that “[widespread] adoption is the sign of a respected and well designed
language”.

> I can't stand Java. I just don't think calling it a mistake. It's
> worth has been proven by its level of adoption and by the usable
> software that has been made with it. Javascript/ECMAScript is
> criticized by so many and yet there's no denying of its importance.

You're making the case for importance, and capability to implement
programs that solve problems.

Maybe it's true, but it's irrelevant to the earlier point. It is quite
separate from the language being well designed, and it is quite separate
from the language being respectable. Many languages — some of which
you've named — are poorly-designed, are not deserving of respect,
despite being widely-adopted.

> Even today we struggle to find a better alternative to client-side
> scripting. Python is criticized by so many. And yet I don't think
> calling on Python developers as an inferior breed of programmers.

Glad to know that :-)

-- 
 \         “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the |
  `\                                               best.” —Oscar Wilde |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney