Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.python > #58974 > unrolled thread

Re: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python)

Started byMark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
First post2013-11-09 23:24 +0000
Last post2013-11-11 09:51 -0800
Articles 5 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-09 23:24 +0000
    Re: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-11-09 19:41 -0500
      Re: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-10 11:53 +1100
        Re: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2013-11-10 08:56 +0000
          Re: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python) 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com> - 2013-11-11 09:51 -0800

#58974 — Re: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python)

FromMark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
Date2013-11-09 23:24 +0000
SubjectRe: Languages for different purposes (was Re: New user's initial thoughts / criticisms of Python)
Message-ID<mailman.2314.1384039476.18130.python-list@python.org>
On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever
> writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.
>

In my last job I was forced into using Apple(42 not so obvious ways to 
do it)Script.  Yuck.

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#58976

FromRoy Smith <roy@panix.com>
Date2013-11-09 19:41 -0500
Message-ID<roy-D137D2.19415309112013@news.panix.com>
In reply to#58974
On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >
> > * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever
> > writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.

One of the worst coding experiences I ever had was trying to build an 
app for a Roku media player.  They have a home-grown language called 
BrightScript.  Barf.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#58978

FromChris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Date2013-11-10 11:53 +1100
Message-ID<mailman.2317.1384044797.18130.python-list@python.org>
In reply to#58976
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> >
>> > * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever
>> > writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.
>
> One of the worst coding experiences I ever had was trying to build an
> app for a Roku media player.  They have a home-grown language called
> BrightScript.  Barf.

And this is exactly why I was so strongly against the notion of
developing an in-house scripting language. It may be a lot of work to
evaluate Lua, Python, JavaScript, and whatever others we wanted to
try, but it's a *lot* less work than making a new language that
actually is worth using.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#58992

FromJorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>
Date2013-11-10 08:56 +0000
Message-ID<slrnl7uii5.2m9.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid>
In reply to#58978
On Sun, 2013-11-10, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>> On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> >
>>> > * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever
>>> > writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.
>>
>> One of the worst coding experiences I ever had was trying to build an
>> app for a Roku media player.  They have a home-grown language called
>> BrightScript.  Barf.
>
> And this is exactly why I was so strongly against the notion of
> developing an in-house scripting language. It may be a lot of work to
> evaluate Lua, Python, JavaScript, and whatever others we wanted to
> try, but it's a *lot* less work than making a new language that
> actually is worth using.

Yes.  I am baffled that people insist on doing the latter. Designing a
limited /data/ language is often a good idea; designing something
which eventually will need to become Turing-complete is not.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#59091

From88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@gmail.com>
Date2013-11-11 09:51 -0800
Message-ID<1523997e-c25c-4cd0-807c-f75765ea9b92@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#58992
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-11-10, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> 
> >> On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 
> >>> >
> 
> >>> > * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever
> 
> >>> > writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet.
> 
> >>
> 
> >> One of the worst coding experiences I ever had was trying to build an
> 
> >> app for a Roku media player.  They have a home-grown language called
> 
> >> BrightScript.  Barf.
> 
> >
> 
> > And this is exactly why I was so strongly against the notion of
> 
> > developing an in-house scripting language. It may be a lot of work to
> 
> > evaluate Lua, Python, JavaScript, and whatever others we wanted to
> 
> > try, but it's a *lot* less work than making a new language that
> 
> > actually is worth using.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  I am baffled that people insist on doing the latter. Designing a
> 
> limited /data/ language is often a good idea; designing something
> 
> which eventually will need to become Turing-complete is not.

Python is designed with the VM 
interpreter to execute compiled 
byte codes.

Of course, C/C++/JAVA are lower 
level languages not designed in 
this way.

To remedy the efficient part, 
cython and C-extensions are available
in Python. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python


csiph-web