3 ms·

Amen brother. If you make one mistake in your thinking, it's treating Python as more than a christmas hack (which it started out as). It's not a serious langua

Amen brother. If you make one mistake in your thinking, it's treating Python as more than a christmas hack (which it started out as). It's not a serious language, it has no design behind it and is decades behind the state of the art. Use it for throw-away scripts and such is what I say, it's an area where it shines. The moment you want to _architect_ something substantial, reach for something else cause chewing gum and duct tape is not going to do it.

vegabook 11y ago
Amen buddy. I hack in Python. I discover in Python. I script, and I pre-production in Python. Then I do C or Java or even JS. But none of my pro-code would have been possible without all the learning I accumulated about the problem in good ol' 2.7 interactive and its arsenal of tools. [edit] Actually I think you're right. I think it's time to graduate to something serious. My mistake is to think that Python can be that serious language. 3.x, by trying to be that, is horribly compromising the basics of what Python is all about, namely accessibility, friendliness, discovery, malleability. Not production.
zeeg 11y ago
We are pretty serious about the web, infrastructure, and platforms in general, and we use Python. As does Dropbox, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I don't think concurrency is great in Python, but you're living in the wrong world if you dont think people are using the language for real things.
- armitron 11y ago
  Not sure what you mean by pretty serious about the web, infrastructure and platforms. To me this reads as an oxymoron because Python is not a pretty serious language. It's a toy at best. There is not a single feature that Python introduced or pioneered in the computing arena. It's a mismash of bad ideas from other similarly bad languages, wrapped in user-friendly paper. In that regard, it's very similar to Perl, but a lot more dangerous. Unlike Perl, there is nothing immediate in Python to warn you of the pit you're digging for yourself, especially if you're a newcomer to programming (as a substantial chunk of the Python community is). The troubles begin when you make the colossal mistake of trying to use Python for more than it can do, try to design and architect actual systems with it but I digress. On the other point you made, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are using C++ too. Does that make C++ a good language for architecting substantial systems? Show me (1) system of substantial size implemented in C++ that hasn't turned out to be a DISASTER in anything _but_ performance. When your browser can be taken over a million ways to Sunday _just because_ it's implemented in C++, do you think Google, Facebook, Twitter etc give a damn if _you_ don't? Same argument for PHP and Facebook. Would you say that these companies are "pretty serious" about web, infrastructure and platforms? There are good languages out there, suited to architecting systems that are maintainable, secure and evolve gracefully. You won't find them simply by looking at what Google, Facebook and Twitter are using. You will need to try harder.

vegabook 11y ago

Amen buddy. I hack in Python. I discover in Python. I script, and I pre-production in Python. Then I do C or Java or even JS. But none of my pro-code would have been possible without all the learning I accumulated about the problem in good ol' 2.7 interactive and its arsenal of tools. [edit] Actually I think you're right. I think it's time to graduate to something serious. My mistake is to think that Python can be that serious language. 3.x, by trying to be that, is horribly compromising the basics of what Python is all about, namely accessibility, friendliness, discovery, malleability. Not production.

zeeg 11y ago

We are pretty serious about the web, infrastructure, and platforms in general, and we use Python. As does Dropbox, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I don't think concurrency is great in Python, but you're living in the wrong world if you dont think people are using the language for real things.

armitron 11y ago
Not sure what you mean by pretty serious about the web, infrastructure and platforms. To me this reads as an oxymoron because Python is not a pretty serious language. It's a toy at best. There is not a single feature that Python introduced or pioneered in the computing arena. It's a mismash of bad ideas from other similarly bad languages, wrapped in user-friendly paper. In that regard, it's very similar to Perl, but a lot more dangerous. Unlike Perl, there is nothing immediate in Python to warn you of the pit you're digging for yourself, especially if you're a newcomer to programming (as a substantial chunk of the Python community is). The troubles begin when you make the colossal mistake of trying to use Python for more than it can do, try to design and architect actual systems with it but I digress. On the other point you made, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc are using C++ too. Does that make C++ a good language for architecting substantial systems? Show me (1) system of substantial size implemented in C++ that hasn't turned out to be a DISASTER in anything _but_ performance. When your browser can be taken over a million ways to Sunday _just because_ it's implemented in C++, do you think Google, Facebook, Twitter etc give a damn if _you_ don't? Same argument for PHP and Facebook. Would you say that these companies are "pretty serious" about web, infrastructure and platforms? There are good languages out there, suited to architecting systems that are maintainable, secure and evolve gracefully. You won't find them simply by looking at what Google, Facebook and Twitter are using. You will need to try harder.