"inhahe" <inhahe@gmail.c omwrote in message news:...
>
>
The utterly dry, closed, logical, definitive, hierarchical, consistent,
determinate nature of a computer language is the only thing that will
facilitate anything useful on something as utterly stupid (and not to
mention logical, definite and determined) as a computer.
>
I mean it, computers are /really/ stupid. They're literally
stupider than a bug. We just like things we can control.
>
The requisites I have for a computer language are:
>
Efficiency (speed)
Elegance of syntax
Powerful (conceptual-wise) abstractions
>
Python has delicious abstractions that make doing a lot of things really
easy and fun to think about.
Stackless Python adds even more to that with continuations.
Also Python's dynamic (another aspect of being powerful conceptual-wise)
But most of all, I love its syntax. Guido is the awesome.
(BTW, I won't even use any language that uses := for assignment. I just
refuse. I don't care what the language has.)
>
The speed/efficiency issue depends on the task at hand. For most things I
use Python. But assembly isn't out of the question, and it's fun to code
in. I also find C/C++ an elegant language. Most things just don't need
that speed. And Python is 50 times easier to code in than C/C++ and 1000
times easier to debug in.
>
I also like C#.
>
My ideal language would be a natively compiling cross between C++ and
Python. Objects declared with a type would be statically typed, objects
not declared with a type would be dynamically typed. There would also be
keywords to declare that class names won't be reassigned and class
attributes won't be deleted. Those attributes would be referred to by
offset, not hast table keys. f
>>It is not clear that the first (cheapest best) human->computer language
>>is a computer language, though if two were orthonormal >in comparison
>>to life, Python's fine. Not my first.
>>is a computer language, though if two were orthonormal >in comparison
>>to life, Python's fine. Not my first.
The utterly dry, closed, logical, definitive, hierarchical, consistent,
determinate nature of a computer language is the only thing that will
facilitate anything useful on something as utterly stupid (and not to
mention logical, definite and determined) as a computer.
>
I mean it, computers are /really/ stupid. They're literally
stupider than a bug. We just like things we can control.
>
The requisites I have for a computer language are:
>
Efficiency (speed)
Elegance of syntax
Powerful (conceptual-wise) abstractions
>
Python has delicious abstractions that make doing a lot of things really
easy and fun to think about.
Stackless Python adds even more to that with continuations.
Also Python's dynamic (another aspect of being powerful conceptual-wise)
But most of all, I love its syntax. Guido is the awesome.
(BTW, I won't even use any language that uses := for assignment. I just
refuse. I don't care what the language has.)
>
The speed/efficiency issue depends on the task at hand. For most things I
use Python. But assembly isn't out of the question, and it's fun to code
in. I also find C/C++ an elegant language. Most things just don't need
that speed. And Python is 50 times easier to code in than C/C++ and 1000
times easier to debug in.
>
I also like C#.
>
My ideal language would be a natively compiling cross between C++ and
Python. Objects declared with a type would be statically typed, objects
not declared with a type would be dynamically typed. There would also be
keywords to declare that class names won't be reassigned and class
attributes won't be deleted. Those attributes would be referred to by
offset, not hast table keys. f