4 ms·
I don't think it misses anything. My post is mainly around things I want to make better, to make python better. I am definitely a fan of using the right tool fo
by jnoller 17y ago
I don't think it misses anything. My post is mainly around things I want to make better, to make python better. I am definitely a fan of using the right tool for the right job: that means using the language which fits the domain. This is why I don't think arguments for "more functional programming" features or "be erlang" hold a lot of water for Python; if that's what you want, you need to go use those tools.
- rbanffy 17y agoI agree with your points and, having done a lot of Zope/Plone programming in the past, your #1 is by far my #1 too. More than once I have sworn if I knew enough of the inner workings of CPython, I would solve the problem myself, even if it took years of labor, even if I had to rewrite each and every module out there ;-) I think my rather inadequately thought out response was because most of the comments here in HN were about changing Python into something else. I am truly sorry I implied your article was about turning Python into something unnatural and I most certainly owe you an apology.
- jnoller 17y agoIt's nothing. But I wholly agree that many of the comments here and elsewhere are very much in the vein of "man wouldn't it be great if python was OCaml?!!", which is about as useful a comment as a hole in my head.
- silentbicycle 17y agoPython isn't OCaml. It's not Prolog, Haskell, awk, or SQL either, and trying to bend it into those is largely missing the point. A more interesting question is, "In what circumstances is Python an excellent fit, and OCaml a poor one?", and vice versa.