Steve Lamb dijo [Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 05:40:18PM -0800]: > Python's diametrically opposed philosophy is much better. There should > ideally be only one obvious way to do something. With that in mind the > language itself is much smaller. Concepts are tied to one, maybe two > syntax. So in learning both at once, especially by reading examples, it is > much easier.
...I don't know, there are points both for and against it - but I think I must concede there is some truth in your reasoning. > Finally there is the simple fact that Python is interactive. There > have been many cases where I have a window on the left with my code and a > window on the right sitting in Python where I hash out my ideas because I'm > not quite sure how things are going to flow yet or exactly how the syntax > works. I can play with the syntax, keep my data fairly static, work out > each step in detail and as I do put that in the script on the left. IE, > nothing quite compares to learning how slices work across all kinds of > sequences other thank just playing with them like this: Yup, that is something I always found lacking in Perl. In fact, I run this very often: -------------- #!/usr/bin/perl my $count = 0; print '-> '; while (my $lin = <STDIN>) { my @r = eval $lin; print "R: @r\n" if @r; print "E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" if $@; print '-> '; undef $@; $count++; } END { print "Leaving Perl Interpreter.\n", "$count statements executed.\nHave fun out there!\n"; } -------------- Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature