Re: Python (was Re: I did not inhale)

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 14:24:01 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

Don't you ever just accept that a language is the way it is, and it
is perfectly useable that way?  Or think that perhaps other people in
the world know better than you do about how they want their language
to work?  Has it never occurred to you that the people behind a given
language - such as Python - considered various alternatives and
decided that making it the way they did was the best choice overall
for the language they wanted?

They probably did - but did they do that *because* of the point in
question, in spite of it, or without any meaningful inclination toward
or against it? There are plenty of other aspects about Python that may
tip the balance in spite of its annoyances.

F'rinstance, the *very* comprehensive set of libraries make bashing out
quick utilities to do A Complex Thing often very simple. (That was the
reason I first used it - needed a quick-'n-easy way to programmatically
deliver data in a POST request from a Windows box in production, and it
beat the hell out of trying to wrap my head around Win32 network
programming.) But if the language "wins" on that score, that doesn't
mean its annoyances or flaws are any less real or worthy of complaint.

Like, obviously it's way too late in the game for Python to change this
now. But we can still say it's stupid for them to have done it that way
in the first place. Is that a matter of opinion? Sure, but that's never
stopped anybody from expressing themselves re: any other language. (How
many people are still bitching about C being "insecure," 50+ years down
the line?)