On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 07:18:54PM +0200, 2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com wrote: > > On 9/28/18 12:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 09:59:53PM +1000, Hugh Fisher wrote: > > > >>C and Python (currently) are known as simple languages. > > > >o_O > > > >That's a usage of "simple" I haven't come across before. Especially in > >the case of C, which is a minefield of *intentionally* underspecified > >behaviour which makes it near to impossible for the developer to tell > >what a piece of syntactically legal C code will actually do in practice. > > s/C/Python/ > > s/underspecified/dynamic/ > > ;-)
I see the wink, but I don't see the relevance. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Python is "simple" in the sense that the execution model is *relatively* simple, but its not a minimalist language by any definition. And as you say, the execution model is dynamic: we can't be sure what legal code will do until you know the runtime state. (Although we can often guess, based on assumptions about sensible, non-weird objects that don't do weird things.) But none of that compares to C undefined behaviour. People who think that they are equivalent, don't understand C undefined behaviour. https://blog.regehr.org/archives/213 http://blog.llvm.org/2011/05/what-every-c-programmer-should-know_14.html -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/