3 ms·
There's many dimensions on which we can evaluate programming languages, but the NLTK folk are only really interested in one: readability. Their page implicitly
by lars512 16y ago
There's many dimensions on which we can evaluate programming languages, but the NLTK folk are only really interested in one: readability. Their page implicitly argues that high-level languages with good string processing are the most readable, and that amongst those Python is more readable than the alternatives (for both non-programmers and experts).
NLTK is supposed to be an educational toolkit. It's used by linguists taking their first steps in programming, and by CS students taking their first steps in complexity and mess of human language. They're not looking for the shortest code, the fastest code, or the most <quality attribute X> code, just the most readable, insofar as readability can be supported and encouraged by a language.
- bradleyland 16y agoIn that case, Python and Ruby must be front runners. I'm not sure why they put Ruby so close to the bottom, or why they used the obscure ARGF mechanism instead of the more readable examples elsewhere in this discussion. It seems as though the author may have an interest in promoting Python as the choice.
- chromatic 16y agoIt seems as though the author may have an interest in promoting Python as the choice. Clearly the author has made a strong assumption that the peculiarities of Python syntax and semantics (`import`, `sys.stdin`, `for` ... `in`) are somehow clear to Python novices.