On 1/24/06, Ben Sizer <kylotan@gmail.com> wrote:
I am also puzzled by the following: is it that I tend to dislike
some languages because they are overly hyped, or is it simply
because I find them non-aesthetic and/or uninspiring?
For scripting, I would always pick one of Icon, Lua, Rexx,
Ruby, but not Perl or Python.
I would be interested to hear why you would not consider
Python, as it has a very similar underlying model to Lua.
Is it the syntax you dislike?
Perhaps because for any purpose I can think of, it seems that
there is a language I would prefer to Python. That is, not that
Python is too bad, but it is not good enough either. Or, as
David Given said in this thread, it ``does not cut it''.
Perhaps this is partly a matter of personal taste, but to me
Python is too eclectic, and tends to be even more so with the
new releases. Is there a single charactersitic feature that
makes Python stand out w.r.t. the rest of the languages?
Python changes over time, borrowing from Haskell, Icon etc.
So do C++, Java and Perl. IMO, this shows that the design
of these languages suffers serious flaws. For comparison,
C experienced almost no changes for some 35 years,
because for what it aimed at its design was excellent. And
fortunately, C is not alone in this respect.
Lisa Parratt <lisa@thecommune.org.uk> wrote:
Meaningful whitespace was a stupid idea when Unix make
took it up, and it's still a stupid idea now.
I don't think that the indentation rule is, or was, ``a stupid
idea'', although I would prefer to be able to use an alternative
style as well (as in Haskell). First, it is not all the
``whitespace'' that is meaningful, just indentation.
