On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM, James Laver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-12-03 20:10, "Avleen Vig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It's a singular datapoint, but to answer the "how many python jobs..", >> I would ask "how many engineers has Google hired in London in the last >> few years? >> It's *one* job application with lots of hires, many of whom will have >> to use python at some point. >> Other companies have probably done the same. >> >> But I don't believe the same is true with Perl. >> Perl is fairly well entrenched. It's available everywhere. But Python >> is still growing and has a lot of headroom. >> Most people have tried Perl. The number trying Python and Ruby instead >> is growing. Fast. >> >> I like Python too and wish the same. >> I like that is enforces structure. I'd donate a kidney if perl could >> be made to do that. > > It's not the place of a language to do that, it's a case of "Don't be an > idiot when writing code".
=from http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Techdoc/Lore/famous.bug 1. A bug in a FORTRAN program that controlled one of the inner planet fly-bys (I think it was a fly-by of Mercury). The bug was caused because the programmer inadvertently said DO 10 I=1.5 instead of DO 10 I=1,5. FORTRAN interprets the former as "assign a value of 1.5 to the variable DO10I". I heard that as a result the fly-by went off course and never did the fly-by! A good case for using variable declarations. =cut use strict; use warnings; use Class::Contract; etc etc etc All these things are there to prevent humans being idiots. That page has a lot of other awesome software failures, btw. See also http://thedailywtf.com/ > I've seen crappy python and other code often enough, you can't fix it inside > the language, you have to fix the programmer. Humans aren't very reliable* so the more the language and the compiler can help out the better. *especially so with age, altho' I couldn't possibly comment... P > --James > > >