> Actually, that's not true. Languages such as Perl and Python > were designed to write scripts, not to code entire > applications.
Prove it. Prove what the creators and initial shapers of the language intended! There is an argumentative fallacy called "hasty generalization" - surely you know what I'm talking about. This is a baseless claim without warrant or data, and is a generalization tantamount to saying something silly like "Lisp was only created to give Emacs users a way to change their colors." > Python is an exception because it can be > successfully used to code large applications, unlike some > other scripting languages. Have you considered that you are trying to create a rule and find a way for the exception not to prove it false. Has it occurred that you are creating a false dichotomy? You sound as silly as clerics in medieval Europe in denial about retrograde motion of the planets in the night sky - after all, we all know that the Earth is the center of the universe. That analogy is apt because it is the same pattern of logic - try to scapegoat the obvious hole in your theory as an irrelevant outlier, label it, and hope that an inquisition of name-calling destroys it. > So it's best to call Python a > "scripting programming language" because it has this dual > nature. So what really matters is what we call it? I must make a note to remember how much more important this is than how we use it. > All said and done, I prefer to use Java over Python > for large applications Good for you; there are others that share your tastes, but that's all it is: preference. A good coder could create an equally powerful suitably large application in either language in the same amount of time. The only difference is that the Python coder's wrists hurt 75% less from doing 25% of the typing, and the Python coder's peers' eyes hurt 75% less as they can read code quicker. > simply because it's cleaner and has > mechanisms in place that support reusability of components > and extensibility. Huh? You can do pretty much the same designs, patterns, etc in Python. Why does language make a difference here in re-usability. Perhaps you are arguing for single-inheritance as a constraint (which you can self-impose in design in Python). > Also, OO concepts such as abstraction and > inheritance are well defined in Java. And they aren't in python. I think this is just another baseless statement. > Also, both compiled and interpreted languages have their > advantages and disadvantages. The real Java/Python debate is about dynamic strong typing versus static strong typing. Such debates have already been had, ad nauseum, elsewhere. This "interpreted" or "scripting versus programming" angle on a language flamewar is neither new, nor insightful. Sean +----------------------------------------------------------+ Sean Upton SignOnSanDiego.com Site Technology Supervisor The San Diego Union-Tribune 619.718.5241 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 350 Camino De La Reina San Diego, CA 92108 Plone Powered! plone.org ++ python.org ++ zope.org +----------------------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )