Linked by Eugenia Loli on Sat 15th Jul 2006 22:45 UTC
.NET (dotGNU too) Jeff Cogswell writes: "I'm about to make a confession. Even though I've written several books and articles about C++, I have a secret: C++ isn't my favorite language. I have lots of languages that I use, each one for different purposes. But the language I consider my all-time favorite is Python."
Thread beginning with comment 143585
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Python is . . .
by Cloudy on Sun 16th Jul 2006 18:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Python is . . ."
Cloudy
Member since:
2006-02-15

Bad guess in this case. I've been a believer in loose coupling, implemenation hiding, and doing one thing per function since before the term 'object oriented' was invented.

My objections to programming languages that try to enforce good practice dates back to Dykstra's observation, in the context of Pascal, that you can "write Fortran in any language".

Readability is a function of programmer discipline, not a feature of a language.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Python is . . .
by rayiner on Sun 16th Jul 2006 18:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Python is . . ."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

I think readability is a function of langauge too. Modern C++ is an emminently unreadable language, as is Perl, even with good programmer discipline. Meanwhile, even poorly-written Python is often adequately readable, because there are only so many ways to screw up Python code while having it remain synactically valid.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Python is . . .
by Cloudy on Sun 16th Jul 2006 19:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Python is . . ."
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

a sentence with unusual structure, if I compose such a beast, the language unreadable makes, or my difficult writing it shows?

It's easy to write poor C++, just as it is easy to write poor but correct English. But it's not a particularly unreadable language, unless it's been obfuscated.

About Perl, I'll agree with you. But that's because perl's semantics are so bad that it wouldn't matter what syntax it had it would be unreadable.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Python is . . .
by rayiner on Sun 16th Jul 2006 22:34 in reply to "RE[3]: Python is . . ."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, the ability to construct poor sentences does not imply a poor language, but that does not mean that some languages aren't less amenable to clear-code than others.

Idiomatic modern C++ is quite hard to read. The choice of template argument delimeters as well as the choice of scoping delimeter break up the flow of the text, to a much greater extent than does the less obtrusive delimiters in Java. The convention of discouraging 'using' statements doesn't help much. Even simple C constructs like loops blow up to absurd sizes in C++ code. Look through code that uses Boost or Loki sometimes. These libraries are written by good C++ programmers, even some experts in the field, and their readability is still sub-par.

Reply Parent Score: 1