Linked by MOS6510 on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:25 UTC
General Development "For years I've tried my damnedest to get away from C. Too simple, too many details to manage, too old and crufty, too low level. I've had intense and torrid love affairs with Java, C++, and Erlang. I've built things I'm proud of with all of them, and yet each has broken my heart. They've made promises they couldn't keep, created cultures that focus on the wrong things, and made devastating tradeoffs that eventually make you suffer painfully. And I keep crawling back to C."
Thread beginning with comment 548554
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

Even sadder are all these 'newer' languages that are even more needlessly cryptic and difficult to decipher like Python, Ruby, or lord help you Rust...


I don't know about the other two, but Python is really easy to decipher. The mandatory indents make it really easy. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

I should like Python -- I really should given what a stickler I am for clear consistent formatting...

But to be brutally frank, it's more cryptic than C in it's logic structures. Take the example up above by funkyelf -- both the C and the Python versions make me want to punch someone in the face due to their lack of clarity.

But again, I worship at the throne of all things Wirth so...

I LIKE the forced formatting of Python -- I DISLIKE the unclear control structures and lack of verbose ending elements... and the needlessly short/cryptic methodology and naming conventions. By the time you get into iterators and generators, it's a needlessly convoluted mess that honestly, I have a hard time making any sense out of.

I dunno, maybe this dog is getting too old for new tricks -- but I cry for anyone trying to use python to learn with -- which is part of why I don't get why the Pi folks and many educators have such a raging chodo for it. It's the LAST thing I'd consider using to teach people to program... It's another of those languages so complex IMHO you'd be better off just sucking it up and coding machine language directly. I really don't get these high level languages that make assembly look simple.

Edited 2013-01-13 09:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

By the time you get into iterators and generators, it's a needlessly convoluted mess that honestly, I have a hard time making any sense out of.


With iterators and generators, you have to understand that it's almost a different "paradigm". I think the root of your problem with Python may more be the fact that it's not a purely imperative language? I'm currently biting the Common Lisp bullet, and the Lisps have the same kind of ability.

Like C++, most programs don't need advanced Python features like iterators or generators anyway, but once you get used to a more declarative style of programming, it becomes a lot easier. That usually involves writing a few Python list comprehensions.

I dunno, maybe this dog is getting too old for new tricks -- but I cry for anyone trying to use python to learn with -- which is part of why I don't get why the Pi folks and many educators have such a raging chodo for it. It's the LAST thing I'd consider using to teach people to program... It's another of those languages so complex IMHO you'd be better off just sucking it up and coding machine language directly. I really don't get these high level languages that make assembly look simple.


The thing that makes Python a good teaching language is that the basics of programming in Python is a lot easier to understand than C and its descendants. Yes, there are complicated advanced things, but in terms of the basic stuff, Python is easier to teach.

Reply Parent Score: 3