Walter Bright, el 1 de diciembre a las 17:31 me escribiste: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >It looks like you can (not as easily) according to bearophile example, but > >this is besides the point, you only want to use malloc() for performance > >reasons, and I already said that D is better than Python on that. > >I mentioned ctypes just for the point of easy C-interoperability. > > To me C interoperability means being able to connect with any C > function. That means handling pointers, structs, etc.
Well, you can. It's a *little* more verbose than D, but since you almost *never* need to interoperate with C in Python, it's not so bad. > >>>It's simpler, because you only have one obvious way to do things, > >>No, Python has try/catch/finally as well. > >I said *obvious*. try/catch/finally is there for another reason (managing > >errors, not doing RAII). Of course you can find convoluted ways to do > >anything in Python as with any other language. > > try/catch/finally is usually used for handling RAII in languages > that don't have RAII, so I don't think it's really justifiable to > argue that Python only gives one obvious way to do it. It's obvious when you code in Python. > D has three: RAII, scope guard, and try-catch-finally. As far as I'm > concerned, the only reason t-c-f isn't taken out to the woodshed and > shot is to make it easy to translate code from other languages to D. I think code translation from other languages is not a good reason for adding complexity... > >>>Maybe you are right, but the with statement plays very well with the > >>>"explicit is better than implicit" of Python :) > >>> > >>>Again, is flexibility vs complexity. > >>Another principle is abstractions should be in the right place. When > >>the abstraction leaks out into the use of the abstraction, it's user > >>code complexity. This is a case of that, I believe. > > > >Where is the code complexity here, I can't see it. > > The code complexity is suppose I create a mutex object. Every time I > get the mutex, I want the mutex to be released on all paths. With > RAII, I build this into the mutex object itself. But you can do that with the 'with' statement! > Without RAII, I have to add in the exception handling code EVERY place > I use the object. If I change the abstraction, I have to go and change > every use of it. To me, that's code complexity, not flexibility. > > A proper abstraction means that if I change the design, I only have > to change it in one place. Not everywhere its used. We agree completely :) > >The thing is, I never used them and never had the need to. Don't ask me > >why, I just have very few errors when coding in Python. So it's not really > >*needed*. > > I agree that static analysis isn't needed. The better statement is > is there a benefit to it that exceeds the cost? Maybe in very big projects with an heterogeneous team, I don't know. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Si pensas que el alma no se ve el alma sí se ve en los ojos
