3 ms·

Maybe the advantages of a ubiquitous, conventional language that doesn't require its own bespoke input system become more clear when you're not just playing aro

• 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
  "Maybe the advantages of a ubiquitous, conventional language that doesn't require its own bespoke input system..." You mean like the Almquist shell. If Python interpreter was faster and smaller than the shell, I would learn to use it for everything.
  • eternityforest 5y ago
    MicroPython exists, I'm not sure why that isn't used more. A lot of C programs could be replaced with MP+Py to keep everything small enough to statically link. But outside of embedded or initramfs(Or static bundles) I don't see how the size matters much.
    • 1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
      Using microPython I could probably replace the use of shell for many tasks. I doubt I would get any speed gains but maybe I could learn Python in the process. It's an idea. A reason I am interested in learning Python is, of course, to understand and edit certain Python programs written by others. That reason has just not been compelling enough to get me to learn it. I spend more time on C. I need to have a C compiler for various reasons, like compiling kernels, so that provides an excuse to learn it. However I can get by without Python. Hence I am better with C than with Python. That later just is not "essential" for me, or interesting enough, like APL. I do stuff that is like embedded and intramfs, custom static multicall binaries, on older and small form factor computers, so the size does matter.