[gameprogrammer] Re: "Mission Efficiency" - Blue Collar coding

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:48:03PM -0500, Bob Pendleton wrote:

> Python uses indentation as part of its syntax. Which is just plain
> wrong.

It just plain doesn't matter IMHO.  This must be the least important of
a language's features.

I was surprised, too, when I first found out that Python uses
indentation as part of syntax.  But I just adapted.  After all, Python
makes me do what I'd do anyway, I just leave the braces out.

> I have worked on too many projects where we made extensive use of
> automatically generated code.

I believe that overwhelming majority of people write, not generate their
code.  If you really need to generate code and cannot stand the extra
amount of work needed to get the indentation right, then Python might
not be the language for the job.  That's it.

> The amount of extra effort needed to do that with Python boggles my
> mind. Not to mention the problems of inserting code into other code
> using macro expansion. 

Python doesn't use preprocessor, presumably because it doesn't need one.
Macros are sort of morally deprecated in other languages, anyway.

> Even editing Python code with out a specially designed editor has got to
> be a pain. 

I edit Python in vim and I don't find it harder than editing C or Lua.

> Then there is a the problem of reading new code while you are debugging
> it. Leave out a space or tab and the meaning of the program changes and
> you have no marker to tell you what what you really wanted to do.

Look, I think that for every way of demarcating a block of statements,
drawbacks like this can be pointed out.  Braces have them too.  I
personally find this issue too minor a thing to let it influence my
judgement on the language.

> Makes me cringe just thinking about it. I got about 10 pages into a book
> on Python once, got to the point where they made it clear that Python
> really uses indentation as syntax and I closed the book and walked away.

Strange, really strange.  One would expect people to argue about
generators vs. real coroutines, properties, the way introspection is
done, the way classes are made first-class objects in the language and
other features that really matter.  Instead, what I see is people
arguing about indentation.  It seems funny to me in a way.

> > I'm trying to overcome my negative emotional reactions against languages
> > or major libraries.  
> 
> I don't see why you would do that? Well, yes I do. But, I have found
> that a negative emotional reaction points to a serious problem that your
> intellect just hasn't figured out yet.

Your intuition is way better than mine, then.  My negative *emotional*
reaction usually turns out to be mostly my close-mindedness and
unwillingness to accept unfamiliar concepts.

If my emotional reaction really meant something, then Lisp would be by
far the worst language ever invented. ;-)  I took me quite a time to
come to terms with the peculiar syntax of the language.  Well, I'm glad
I did it. :-)

> > I positively dislike things like Pascal or DirectX
> 
> I'm so so on Pascal, but then I haven't used it or looked at it since it
> was the language Wirth invented.

Me too.  What's Pascal, anyway?  I thought it was the language Wirth
invented.  I know that the was a lot of subsequent development, but is
the resulting language still Pascal?

> DirectX gives me a headache. How did they manage to make it so complex?

That's one of the great mysteries of our times. ;-)

> > and I'm far from excited as far as Lisp is concerned, but, after all, if
> > they allow me to do what I need to do ... I mean, WTF, they are just
> > languages. ;-)
> 
> Ok, I see the ;-) at the end of the sentence... The words "just" and
> "language" do not go together, ever. Languages shape how we think. The
> old saying goes something like "When the only tool you have is a hammer,
> then every problem is a nail". Since not all problems are nails you want
> a lot of tools and the language is not just the most important tool, it
> is the tool box.

Yes, but still the language should not be overestimated.  The point is
to try not to have just a hammer.  When all you have is C then
everything is a function.  With C++ everything is an object (well, not
really - but you get the point).  With Lisp everything is a list.  The
"when all you have is hammer then every problem is a nail" problem
cannot be solved in context of a single language.

It' true that a programmer tends to think in concepts that are easily
expressed in the language he's coding in.  But it's up to the programmer
to find out what paradigm suites best the problem at hand and then to
pick up one of the languages that support that paradigm natively.  If a
particular programmer isn't allowed to choose the appropriate language
and an inappropriate one is forced upon him, that's certainly wrong -
but it's not fault of the language.

No language will ever be the best one, but it doesn't matter since you
can choose from so many of them.  No need to argue whether C++ is too
object-oriented or isn't object-oriented enough.  If you need an OO
language and you don't like C++, pick another language (but make sure
your refusal of C++ is qualified one).

        latimerius



---------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://gameprogrammer.com/mailinglist.html

Other related posts: