Python Binding [Was: Re: PYTHON VS. PERL VS. TCL ] 
Author Message
 Python Binding [Was: Re: PYTHON VS. PERL VS. TCL ]

Quote:

> Subject: Re: python VS. PERL VS. TCL


> es:
> >> I do not usually reply to obvious flame bait such as this....

> Well I do.  I do it because it's kinda fun.  I also think its good to
> correct what I see as mistakes before they become "conventional

I need to correct this. I didnt not write that first line. You missed
an attribution to Steve M.

I will gladly reply to flame bait with flames.

Quote:
> If you want to write your own language within a language, try Common
> Lisp's macro facility.  Here a programmer can build his/her own idioms
> and constructs which no other programmer in the world will ever
> understand, possibly including 'self' 6 months later (believe me, I
> know).  It's lots of fun, but probably not a good idea.  You'd be

Its has its uses. Again, I am not judging that you should or shouldnt
do it, but when you do, use the right tool. I would, as I said, use
[the] Scheme [macro facility].

Quote:
> I liked your suggestion that Python should have earlier bindings,
> so that an undefined os-specific function is detected at load time
> and not in the middle of a computation.  At present this would suggest
> that one should use

>    import neat_function from os_specific_module

> (to get an error on load) in place of

>    import * from os_specific_module

> or

>    import os_specific_module
>    ...
>        os_specific_module.neat_function(...)

Indeed, but this is just the cleanest possible workaround at present.
I dont think that one should trash the idea of modules and bind
everything to the localname space just to get around a langauge
deficiency.

Quote:
> and that implementations should never use errors such as

>    # os_specific_module for itty-bitty-machines
>    def neat_function(...):
>        raise SystemError, "not implemented on this itty-bitty-machine"

Definitely. Writing functions that do something other than what they
are supposed to should always be a clear violation of convention.

Quote:
> In the long term, I think it might be nice if Python could do more early
> module/function bindings at load time.  This would prevent some abuses
> (which, unfortunately, can sometimes be useful) and have the added
> benefit of making Python run faster.               -a.

...Certainly some static checking would do a world of good. Python
could always appropriate another page from Modula-3 and introduce
unsafe modules where abuse can run rampant, because it IS sometimes
useful.

--
John Redford (AKA GArrow) | 3,600 hours of tape.



Mon, 06 Oct 1997 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. PYTHON VS. PERL VS. TCL

2. jredford's flames and criticism (was: PYTHON VS. PERL VS. TCL )

3. THANKS: RE: PYTHON VS PERL VS TCL

4. Forth vs Python vs Perl

5. perl vs python vs icon

6. Tcl/Tk vs. Perl and Python

7. Tcl vs Python vs Java :: Apologies

8. Python vs Tcl vs Perl5

9. python vs java (vs tcl?) benchmarks

10. Tcl vs Python vs Java :: Apologies

11. Newbie question: tcl vs perl and tkMotif vs tkX

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software