On 26/11/2015 01:52, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 8:23:36 PM UTC-5, BartC wrote:
On 26/11/2015 00:31, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It really, truly isn't. Your viewpoint is clouded by too much immersion in
crippled languages. *Old and obsolete versions* of crippled languages.
Dynamic creation of functions goes back to the 1950s.
It's funny then that the vast majority of top-level function definitions
I see in Python (and import and class statements too) are decidedly static.
I almost started to explain about how yes, Python is often written in
conservative static ways. I was going to mention that a little dynamic
nature goes a long way, and is never far from the surface in even the
simplest Python programs.
But I won't, because I'm not sure you're really interested. There's a
pattern here of people trying to explain Python to you, and eventually,
after many words, getting to some kind of shared understanding, only
for you to shrug it all off as a fad, or pocket-lining, or needless
complexity.
I'm sorry if I've been misunderstood.
I simply stated that Python's approach was novel. Steven D'Aprano then
responded by belittling my view, and effectively trashing every language
I've ever used.
But as it happens I do think features like first class functions are
overrated (and probably the software underpinning the hardware we're all
using is written in the very languages he despises). I don't think a
language is worthless without such a feature.
> For someone who claims to be interested in language design, you're
> remarkably dismissive of pretty much the entire industry. I don't think
> it's worth the effort to try to change your mind.
I did say somewhere in this thread or the other one, that I liked
Python's model well enough that I tried to emulate it in my own
language. That's not being dismissive! (It don't work because the
languages are too different internally; I'll have to save it for a
separate, higher-level language.)
Also, as an implementer, you can understand that I might view certain
features differently from other people. Dynamic features do make it
harder to implement things efficiently, and you have to decide whether
it's worthwhile for the 1% of the time they might be used.
------------------------------------------
FWIW here is that list of features that are different between Python and
my language, or that work a different way, or that I think could be a
useful addition. (Although Python's internal workings make many
impractical.)
http://pastebin.com/JrVTher6
This is not an attempt to compare the complete languages as they are for
different purposes (mine is more low-level, simpler, smaller and
designed to make it easier to create an efficient byte-code interpreter
for it).
--
Bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
