On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:06:55 -0400 doug <dmcgarr...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > On 03/15/2016 12:22 PM, Martin Read wrote: > > On 15/03/16 07:45, deloptes wrote: > >> I see recently more python code written than real C/C++. > > > > So what? Most programs *shouldn't* be written in C or C++, and I > > say this as someone who loves C and C++ and reaches for one of them > > by default as the language for solving computing problems. (Unless > > they involve substantial quantities of text manipulation, in which > > case I reach for Perl because neither C nor C++ have even > > *remotely* satisfactory capabilities in that regard.) > > > > There are specific circumstances in which a low/medium-level > > systems programming language like C or C++ is the right choice for > > implementing solutions to a computing problem. I submit that *most* > > programs are not subject to those circumstances, and thus there are > > better languages for implementing most programs. > > > > Python is probably the right language less often than people use > > it, but for most jobs people do with it, C or C++ would be just as > > wrong a choice, if not more so. > > > > > It's too bad that the original Borland Pascal is not around anymore. > Or even the later version of BASIC with the case statement. Simple > and even a doppus like me could write with one of them! I can barely code- I am limited to shell scripts, Windows/DOS batch, classical BASIC (which I taught myself, it really isn't hard- but it left me with a GOTO habit), and (surprisingly or not) C#, which we were taught at school. There is a lovely BASIC interpreter called Vintage BASIC which holds a special place in my heart... it is mostly compatible with Altair/Commodore BASIC.