Why did no one invent Python before?

[j_mckitrick]

Yes, it's a silly question, but given how far we have come, why is it
that a natural looking, easy to read, incredibly powerful language has
appeared only recently, from a tech standpoint?

I can't *believe* how much more productive I am with the built in data
types and powerful expressions Python offers. It made me want to quit
my C++ job. Well, not quite. ;-)

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing? And aside
from the interpreter, because while it is nice, it's not the main
forte' of the language, IMHO.

jonathon

[Erik Max Francis]

j_mckitrick wrote:

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing? And aside
from the interpreter, because while it is nice, it's not the main
forte' of the language, IMHO.

I think there's some validity to this question. It probably has to do
with a combination of things. First, it takes a while from the
inception of a language before it gets enough development behind it that
it's as powerful as Python is. Even if everyone immediately recognizes
the merits of the languages, it takes a sort of "critical mass" of
people before it really takes off, in terms of usage and people hearing
about it, as well as in terms of building enough of the standard
libraries to make doing advanced things with it a snap. Of course,
things like the Internet have contributed to letting people get in touch
with each other much more easily. Remember that Python has been around
for over ten years; it takes a while for a language to become stable,
build up a developer community that continues to add features to it, and
attracts a base of users. Even with the Internet, that takes time.

Additionally, I think it's at least partially a matter of building up
"technology," so to speak. First, computers have been getting faster
and more powerful for a long time now, of course, but it's only the last
five years or so where it's really been practical to make a high-level
language whose primary concern is not speed, but where machines are fast
enough that for a very large majority of applications. There has
certainly been a niche market for high-level languages in the past, but
computers were often limited enough that you had to carefully fit them
to a task. Nowadays computers are so fast and have so much memory that
it's the other way around -- you usually don't need to worry about raw
performance at all.

Second on the "technology" front is, to lump a bunch of things together
in one term, the computer science. It takes a while to build up
powerful high-level programming ideas that can be brought to bear easily
and effectively in a programming language. Language designers need to
put things together in a way that makes sense, is relatively easy to
use, and is also powerful. Lots of languages don't do it well. Python
does, and I think there are other examples that also fit into the first
technology point, but haven't reached massive popularity yet, like Io.

Simply put, we live in a time where we have computers that are fast
enough that it's very practical to use high-level languages, and we live
in a time where we've had enough practice at it that the the creme of
the crop are really good at what they do. That makes the creation of
something like Python possible.

--
__ Erik Max Francis && ma*@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
/ \ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
\__/ Love is when you wake up in the morning and have a big smile.
-- Anggun

[Russell E. Owen]

In article <ec**************************@posting.google.com >,
j_*********@bigfoot.com (j_mckitrick) wrote:

Yes, it's a silly question, but given how far we have come, why is it
that a natural looking, easy to read, incredibly powerful language has
appeared only recently, from a tech standpoint?

I can't *believe* how much more productive I am with the built in data
types and powerful expressions Python offers. It made me want to quit
my C++ job. Well, not quite. ;-)

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing? And aside
from the interpreter, because while it is nice, it's not the main
forte' of the language, IMHO.

I think smalltalk users would argue that it was done many years ago. It
looks a bit odd at first to C programmers, but is easy to learn and has
most of the strengths of python:
- interpreted
- automatic garbage collection
- simple and clean
- powerful
- rich set of collection types
- rich set of libraries

There are a few important differences:
- much worse for scripting
- built in GUI
- much better development environment; you really don't know what you're
missing until you've used smalltalk's browsers, inspectors and
debuggers. It's the main thing I really, really miss in python.

I think lisp users would also argue for their language. It's really
weird to non-lisp users (much more so than smalltalk is to C/python
programmers) but really powerful.

Anyway, I did not intend to detract from your praise of python. It is a
wonderful language, and my main language right now.

-- Russell

[Terry Reedy]

"j_mckitrick" <j_*********@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:ec**************************@posting.google.c om...

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing?

Actually, it was released over a decade ago, which is hardly 'now' by CS
standards. Perhaps you should ask why you didn't hear about it and
download it sooner? In any case, welcome to the community of Python
enthusiasts.

Terry J. Reedy

[Jeff Epler]

Python's been around for more than a decade at this point. ABC came
before that, and was broadly similar to Python in its syntax. Earlier
still, Apple's Hypertalk was a "natural looking, easy to read,
incredibly powerful language" for hypercard. We're now all the way back to
the mid or late 80s (the Internet didn't immediately answer that
question for me).

Myself, I've been using Python for something like 9 years, and loving
every moment of it.

Jeff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAvl12Jd01MZaTXX0RAsBDAKCqWOM2tY0hs9XS6ImHoD 7bF68OIwCfS47r
yj01vmieBMX78WwqyK5/UdE=
=BqJl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Grant Edwards]

On 2004-06-02, Russell E. Owen <[e-mail]> wrote:

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing? And
aside from the interpreter, because while it is nice, it's not
the main forte' of the language, IMHO.

I think smalltalk users would argue that it was done many years ago. It
looks a bit odd at first to C programmers, but is easy to learn and has
most of the strengths of python:
- interpreted
- automatic garbage collection
- simple and clean
- powerful
- rich set of collection types
- rich set of libraries

There are a few important differences:
- much worse for scripting
- built in GUI
- much better development environment; you really don't know what you're
missing until you've used smalltalk's browsers, inspectors and
debuggers. It's the main thing I really, really miss in python.

The big difference between Smalltalk (back then) and Python
(now) is the price of admission -- both financially and
mentally.

Smalltalk was an amazingly cool system, but I don't remember
any usable free Smalltalk systems until recently. I think I
paid several hundred USD for the "entry" level version of
Smalltalk for a '286 about 15 years back. Add-on libraries
weren't free, and had to be purchased separately. It was cool,
but it didn't integrate with _anything_. It was a world unto
itself. You launched it from DOS, and it completely took over
the machine. Smalltalk was the OS. You couldn't ease into
Smalltalk the way you can with Python. You jumped into the
deep end and either swam or drowned. With python, you can get
your feet wet by wading around in the shallows and gradually
learn to swim as you have the time and inclination.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! A dwarf is passing
at out somewhere in Detroit!
visi.com

[Peter Hansen]

j_mckitrick wrote:

Yes, it's a silly question, but given how far we have come, why is it
that a natural looking, easy to read, incredibly powerful language has
appeared only recently, from a tech standpoint?
Python is almost ancient, from a tech standpoint, as it's over
ten years old...
Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing?

I would claim that Rexx, which appeared long before even Python
was invented, is quite "like this" language we currently love.

-Peter

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On 2 Jun 2004 15:49:30 -0700, j_*********@bigfoot.com (j_mckitrick)
declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:

Yes, it's a silly question, but given how far we have come, why is it
that a natural looking, easy to read, incredibly powerful language has
appeared only recently, from a tech standpoint?
Define "recently".

FORTRAN goes back the tail-end of the 50s, and COBOL and LISP
aren't too distant from it. Call it 1960.

I was using Python on my Amiga nearly a decade ago (when did the
first edition of the Python book come out?). Say 30 years to go from '60
to '90.

Now consider that for much of that period, computers were these
big monolithic things that billed one by the second -- making
interpreters rather expensive to run, not to mention editing on card
decks.

It takes computer power to process a language... Imagine having
to pay the time used for Python, when running on a processor like my
college mainframe (we had 1MB of core! It was a big event when we
obtained a pair of 300MB drives to support the OS swap space). Oh, and
terminals ran at 1200baud, monochrome, text-only.

-- ================================================== ============ <
wl*****@ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
wu******@dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
================================================== ============ <
Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/> <

[fishboy]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 04:26:27 GMT, Dennis Lee Bieber
<wl*****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Now consider that for much of that period, computers were these
big monolithic things that billed one by the second -- making
interpreters rather expensive to run, not to mention editing on card
decks.

It takes computer power to process a language... Imagine having
to pay the time used for Python, when running on a processor like my
college mainframe (we had 1MB of core! It was a big event when we
obtained a pair of 300MB drives to support the OS swap space). Oh, and
terminals ran at 1200baud, monochrome, text-only.
and you had to use upload bandwidth both ways....

rats! just remembered someone made this joke already in #twisted.
<{{{*>

[Hung Jung Lu]

"Russell E. Owen" <[e-mail]> wrote:

I think smalltalk users would argue that it was done many years ago.
...
I think lisp users would also argue for their language. It's really
weird to non-lisp users (much more so than smalltalk is to C/python
programmers) but really powerful.

Another two sets of languages that are smart in different dimensions:

(a) Haskell: functional programming,
(b) Self/AppleScript/Io: prototype-based OOP (PB-OOP).

regards,

Hung Jung

[Alan Gauld]

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 04:26:27 GMT, Dennis Lee Bieber
<wl*****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Yes, it's a silly question, but given how far we have come, why is it
that a natural looking, easy to read, incredibly powerful language has
appeared only recently, from a tech standpoint?

FORTRAN goes back the tail-end of the 50s, and COBOL and LISP
aren't too distant from it. Call it 1960.
And the power of data structures like dictionaries weren't really
appreciated till the 70's and standard *efficent* implementations
weren't available till about the early 80's. Now given that much
of Pythons innards consist of nothing but dictionaries, it would
have been difficult to build something like python(or ABC) toill
at least the mid 80's. ABC was late 80's, so not so very far
behind the state of the art...
It takes computer power to process a language... Imagine having
to pay the time used for Python, when running on a processor like my
college mainframe

True, although BASIC was atound in 1963 and interpreted - but
with a very much simpler syntax than Python...

Alan G.
Author of the Learn to Program website
http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/alan.gauld

[Cameron Laird]

In article <40***************@alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis <ma*@alcyone.com> wrote:

j_mckitrick wrote:

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing? And aside
from the interpreter, because while it is nice, it's not the main
forte' of the language, IMHO.

I think there's some validity to this question. It probably has to do
with a combination of things. First, it takes a while from the

[Cameron Laird]

In article <c9**********@nntp6.u.washington.edu>,
Russell E. Owen <[e-mail]> wrote:

[Cameron Laird]

In article <Hr********************@powergate.ca>,
Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

j_mckitrick wrote:

[Tim Bradshaw]

j_*********@bigfoot.com (j_mckitrick) wrote in message news:<ec**************************@posting.google. com>...

Yes, it's a silly question, but given how far we have come, why is it
that a natural looking, easy to read, incredibly powerful language has
appeared only recently, from a tech standpoint?

Well, discarding the fact that Python isn't really new, I think there
are several factors (in no particular order):

* machine speed/cost. Machines probably started offering enough
price/performance (or just simply enough raw performance, ad any
price) to make languages which concentrated on human usability rather
than optimising performance at the price of everything else viable
around 20 years ago. 10 years after that programmers noticed this
(many still have not, of course, and bizarrely also have not noticed
that machines are no longer like PDP11s, resulting in lots of
`optimized'-but-slow programs...).

* Language design issues. A lot of the people who designed languages
which were oriented towards usability rather than performance fell
into the trap of designing those languages for expert users: people
who would want to do lots of really advanced things with the language,
such as design their own domain languages and so on. The tradeoffs
needed to do this typically steepened the learning curve for the
language enough that lots of people just gace up. Lisp is the classic
example of this. Python has got this just right: it's really easy to
learn Python - no hairy macros or strange syntax to support them - and
unless you come from a Lisp background it only occasionally feels like
hammering nails into your own head.

* Big standard libraries. I think this is largely an artifact of the
technology boom. For much of Python's life high-tech companies were
making so much money that it was considered fine for people to work on
some library for Python. That's somewhat changed now, but Python is
way over critical mass.

--tim

*

[Cameron Laird]

In article <q1********************************@4ax.com>,
Dennis Lee Bieber <wl*****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

[j_mckitrick]

> - much better development environment; you really don't know what you're

missing until you've used smalltalk's browsers, inspectors and
debuggers. It's the main thing I really, really miss in python.

I keep hearing about this Smalltalk IDE. What is really the big deal,
and why hasn't MS ripped it off? I tried to find screenshots but
couldn't. I also applied for a demo download, but never heard back
from the company.

jonathon

[Sion Arrowsmith]

j_mckitrick <j_*********@bigfoot.com> wrote:

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing?

As others have pointed out, Python has been around for a good
decade (as have a number of other powerfully expressive
languages, particularly in the functional camp). A more
pertinent question might be why, when languages like this
appeared some time ago, are monstrosities like C# still being
created? (I recently saw some basic socket server code in C#
-- it's a poor reflection on a supposedly modern, high-level
language when the pure C equivalent would be *less* verbose.
And the library designers appear to have not encountered the
concept of polymorphism.)

--
\S -- si***@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
___ | "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
\X/ | -- Arthur C. Clarke
her nu becomeþ se bera eadward ofdun hlæddre heafdes bæce bump bump bump

[PiedmontBiz]

>

The big difference between Smalltalk (back then) and Python
(now) is the price of admission -- both financially and
mentally.

Smalltalk was an amazingly cool system, but I don't remember
any usable free Smalltalk systems until recently. I think I
paid several hundred USD for the "entry" level version of
Smalltalk for a '286 about 15 years back. Add-on libraries
weren't free, and had to be purchased separately. It was cool,
but it didn't integrate with _anything_. It was a world unto
itself. You launched it from DOS, and it completely took over
the machine. Smalltalk was the OS. You couldn't ease into
Smalltalk the way you can with Python. You jumped into the
deep end and either swam or drowned. With python, you can get
your feet wet by wading around in the shallows and gradually
learn to swim as you have the time and inclination.

I played around with Little Small talk some years back (Tim Budd)
I got it to compile on Minix then lost interest.
I recall that Guido VR did the Macintosh version of it -- windowing system I
believe.

I googled but found no mention of it (actually only checked 2 screens)

I am curious why he left that project behind.

allen

[Roy Smith]

Sion Arrowsmith <si***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

A more pertinent question might be why, when languages like this
appeared some time ago, are monstrosities like C# still being
created?

Here's my take on the currently popular languages...

C took off in the late 70's and early 80's because it was so much better
than the alternatives, and because it was wrapped up with Unix (about
which the same thing can be said). C really was (and still is) a very
good language for what it was intended for: low level procedural
programming.

C++ took off in the mid to late 80's because it answered a need for OO
functionality while maintaining backwards compatability with C. It also
added a few useful features C was lacking. Unfortunately, it also
suffered from a bad case of "second system syndrome". It piled one
complicated feature on top of another, and grew to be an ugly monster.
But don't underestimate the power of the C compatability; for better or
worse, that is what made C++ become so popular.

Java took off in the 1990's for two reasons. One is that it answered a
need for a OOPL which didn't suck quite so much as C++, while still
looking and feeling enough like it to make people comfortable. The
other (and far more critical), reason is that Java jumped on the web
bandwagon with both feet. Between applets and things like JSP (I
actually think JSP is a pretty neat system), Java was the language to
know if you wanted to be involved in web development in the 1990's, and
everybody in the 1990's wanted to be involved in web development. You
could have duct-taped a dead whale to the side of the web bandwagon and
it would have gotten pulled along. The fact that Java was being hyped
by Sun, the darling of the 90's, didn't hurt either.

I must confess to not knowing much about C#, but my (somewhat ignorant)
take on it is that it's taking off because it's yet another language
that doesn't suck quite so much as C++, while still looking and feeling
enough like it to make people comfortable, and it's duct-taped to the
side of the Microsoft bandwagon.

All python did was provide a good programming environment.

[Michael Geary]

j_mckitrick wrote:

I keep hearing about this Smalltalk IDE. What is really the
big deal, and why hasn't MS ripped it off? I tried to find
screenshots but couldn't. I also applied for a demo download,
but never heard back from the company.

Try Squeak, a free, open source implementation of Smalltalk:

http://www.squeak.org/

-Mike

[Steve Lamb]

On 2004-06-03, Roy Smith <ro*@panix.com> wrote:

All python did was provide a good programming environment.

That's not all. There is one thing that I've heard more about Python than
any other language. People, myself included, say it is fun to program in
Python. Fun. I find programming neat but I would never say that my time
programming in Turbo Pascal or Perl was fun. :)

--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

[Matthew Thorley]

Steve Lamb wrote:

On 2004-06-03, Roy Smith <ro*@panix.com> wrote:

All python did was provide a good programming environment.

That's not all. There is one thing that I've heard more about Python than
any other language. People, myself included, say it is fun to program in
Python. Fun. I find programming neat but I would never say that my time
programming in Turbo Pascal or Perl was fun. :)

Hear Hear !!! I'll second that. Programming in pythong is fun.

-matthew

[Terry Reedy]

"Cameron Laird" <cl****@lairds.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

I see as critical enough time to make sufficient mistakes.

I see Python as a or even the successor to Basic, which was invented over
40 years ago. It was the first 'computer programming for everybody' (CP4E)
language. Basic took off in the late 70s with the invention of
microcomputers and the Microsoft port thereto. Its limitations were
apparent by the mid 80s and so Guido invented/developed a new CP4E
language.

Terry J. Reedy

[Lothar Scholz]

Grant Edwards <gr****@visi.com> wrote in message news:<sl*******************@grante.rivatek.com>...

Smalltalk was an amazingly cool system, but I don't remember
any usable free Smalltalk systems until recently. I think I

There were a few but they started at 10.000 USD - at a time where a
full delphi was about 500 USD (the 1.0/2.0) versions.

Interesting that the Smalltalk JIT compiler are still far far better
then anything in the python/ruby/perl world. Maybe this has to do with
the 10000 USD price :-)

[Lothar Scholz]

j_*********@bigfoot.com (j_mckitrick) wrote in message news:<ec**************************@posting.google. com>...

- much better development environment; you really don't know what you're
missing until you've used smalltalk's browsers, inspectors and
debuggers. It's the main thing I really, really miss in python.

I keep hearing about this Smalltalk IDE. What is really the big deal,
and why hasn't MS ripped it off? I tried to find screenshots but
couldn't. I also applied for a demo download, but never heard back
from the company.

MS can't ripp it off. It is a "macro" less OO image based language.
The "image based" is the technical difference and the reason why there
is nothing and can never be something like Smalltalk for python (and
python like languages).

The Perl/Ruby/Python/PHP world have the problem that the languages are
written for intelligent programmer not for intelligent tools (like
refactoring etc).

[Lothar Scholz]

Sion Arrowsmith <si***@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message news:<PG*******@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>...

j_mckitrick <j_*********@bigfoot.com> wrote:

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing?

As others have pointed out, Python has been around for a good
decade (as have a number of other powerfully expressive
languages, particularly in the functional camp). A more
pertinent question might be why, when languages like this
appeared some time ago, are monstrosities like C# still being
created?

Speed and Safer Design of Programs (statically typed).

[bruno modulix]

Alan Gauld a écrit :
(snip)

True, although BASIC was atound in 1963 and interpreted
I think I remember that first basic was compiled. Interpreted versions
came later... (sorry, can find the URL...)
Alan G.
Author of the Learn to Program website
http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/alan.gauld

[Cameron Laird]

In article <40***********************@news.free.fr>,
bruno modulix <on***@xiludom.gro> wrote:

Alan Gauld a écrit :
(snip)

True, although BASIC was atound in 1963 and interpreted

I think I remember that first basic was compiled. Interpreted versions
came later... (sorry, can find the URL...)

[Hung Jung Lu]

Matthew Thorley <ru***@chpc.utah.edu> wrote:

Hear Hear !!! I'll second that. Programming in pythong is fun.

Pythong? PythonG?

Sure, if you speak Spanish, then bienvenido a probar el siguiente
entorno fabuloso del pitón gráfico:

http://www3.uji.es/~dllorens/PythonG/

Or if you use it as a fashion statement:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...40powergate.ca

regards,

Hung Jung

[Hans Nowak]

Steve Lamb wrote:

On 2004-06-03, Roy Smith <ro*@panix.com> wrote:

All python did was provide a good programming environment.

That's not all. There is one thing that I've heard more about Python than
any other language. People, myself included, say it is fun to program in
Python. Fun. I find programming neat but I would never say that my time
programming in Turbo Pascal or Perl was fun. :)

I would. Turbo Pascal, that is, not Perl. Of course, back then I didn't know
any better... :-)

--
Hans Nowak (ha**@zephyrfalcon.org)
http://zephyrfalcon.org/

[Steve Lamb]

On 2004-06-04, Hans Nowak <ha**@zephyrfalcon.org> wrote:

I would. Turbo Pascal, that is, not Perl. Of course, back then I didn't know
any better... :-)

All I remember from those days was getting stuck on casting. Everything
up until that point was easy but after that I just couldn't figure out how to
make "1" into 1. Seemed, obvious to me. *sigh* Then again, I was 11 at the
time so maybe my experience with the language is colored. I do know I still
prefer Pascal (in general) to C (in general) but find tcc really neat! :)

--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

[striker]

They did invent it before, it was called LISP. Look at LISP and take away
the braces ().

[Hamilcar Barca]

In article <ec**************************@posting.google.com > (Thu, 03 Jun
2004 07:18:25 -0700), j_mckitrick wrote:

I keep hearing about this Smalltalk IDE. What is really the big deal,
It's really, actually integrated. Plus, Smalltalk is a language with a
simple syntax.
I also applied for a demo download, but never heard back
from the company.

http://www.squeak.org/

[Klaus Momberger]

j_*********@bigfoot.com (j_mckitrick) wrote in message news:<ec**************************@posting.google. com>...

- much better development environment; you really don't know what you're
missing until you've used smalltalk's browsers, inspectors and
debuggers. It's the main thing I really, really miss in python.

I keep hearing about this Smalltalk IDE. What is really the big deal,
and why hasn't MS ripped it off? I tried to find screenshots but
couldn't. I also applied for a demo download, but never heard back
from the company.

jonathon

Cincom is offering a personal-edition of their product:

http://smalltalk.cincom.com/downloads/index.ssp

then there is Smalltalk/X :

http://www.exept.de/sites/exept/engl...ebersicht.html

both of them are fully-fledged Smalltalks, not demos.

-klaus

[Laurence Rowe]

The reason I like zope us that it is a little like smalltalk for the
web. With the latest ZODB developments I think that a smalltalk like
system for python will be possible (the perfect version for me would
integrate with the xul runtime environment when that eventually appears).

Laurence

Lothar Scholz wrote:

j_*********@bigfoot.com (j_mckitrick) wrote in message news:<ec**************************@posting.google. com>...

- much better development environment; you really don't know what you're
missing until you've used smalltalk's browsers, inspectors and
debuggers. It's the main thing I really, really miss in python.

I keep hearing about this Smalltalk IDE. What is really the big deal,
and why hasn't MS ripped it off? I tried to find screenshots but
couldn't. I also applied for a demo download, but never heard back
from the company.

MS can't ripp it off. It is a "macro" less OO image based language.
The "image based" is the technical difference and the reason why there
is nothing and can never be something like Smalltalk for python (and
python like languages).

The Perl/Ruby/Python/PHP world have the problem that the languages are
written for intelligent programmer not for intelligent tools (like
refactoring etc).

[Grant Edwards]

On 2004-06-04, Hans Nowak <ha**@zephyrfalcon.org> wrote:

All python did was provide a good programming environment.

That's not all. There is one thing that I've heard more about Python than
any other language. People, myself included, say it is fun to program in
Python. Fun. I find programming neat but I would never say that my time
programming in Turbo Pascal or Perl was fun. :)

I would. Turbo Pascal, that is, not Perl. Of course, back then I didn't know
any better... :-)

I'd have to agree that in it's time Turbo Pascal was completely
revolutionary. It had the same "batteries included" feel that
Python does.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Is this BOISE??
at
visi.com

[jmdeschamps]

Steve Lamb <gr**@despair.dmiyu.org> wrote in message news:<sl*****************@dmiyu.org>...

On 2004-06-03, Roy Smith <ro*@panix.com> wrote:

All python did was provide a good programming environment.

That's not all. There is one thing that I've heard more about Python than
any other language. People, myself included, say it is fun to program in
Python. Fun. I find programming neat but I would never say that my time
programming in Turbo Pascal or Perl was fun. :)

For me, fun is making things in software, principaly divising and
designing it. Python is the best compromise of a better-faster-easier
get-the-thing-done programming environment I've seen. (Well, maybe
Hypercard!)
So the fun in Python is in its unobtrusiveness and its simplicity to
get things to work, fast.
See the listing below ;),

Jean-Marc

For context of appraisal, interesting programming
environments/languages I've tried/worked with over the years, looking
for the Holy Grail :
Prolog, Smalltalk, Hypercard (also SuperCard, ToolBook (windows),
Craftman (NeXT)), VIP, Prograph, Double Helix (DBMS), Visual Basic
(Yeh! food), C++Builder, Java/NetBeans

[Scott David Daniels]

Terry Reedy wrote:

I see Python as a or even the successor to Basic, which was invented over
40 years ago. It was the first 'computer programming for everybody' (CP4E)
language.

Actually, I think COBOL was the first attempt at that. That was,
of course before anyone realized a "readable" programming language
should make exactly what the program does "clear."

--
-Scott David Daniels
Sc***********@Acm.Org

[Colin J. Williams]

Russell E. Owen wrote:

In article <ec**************************@posting.google.com >,
j_*********@bigfoot.com (j_mckitrick) wrote:

Yes, it's a silly question, but given how far we have come, why is it
that a natural looking, easy to read, incredibly powerful language has
appeared only recently, from a tech standpoint?

I can't *believe* how much more productive I am with the built in data
types and powerful expressions Python offers. It made me want to quit
my C++ job. Well, not quite. ;-)

Seriously, why is a language like this only NOW appearing? And aside

from the interpreter, because while it is nice, it's not the main

forte' of the language, IMHO.

I think smalltalk users would argue that it was done many years ago. It
looks a bit odd at first to C programmers, but is easy to learn and has
most of the strengths of python:
- interpreted
- automatic garbage collection
- simple and clean
- powerful
- rich set of collection types
- rich set of libraries

There are a few important differences:
- much worse for scripting
- built in GUI
- much better development environment; you really don't know what you're
missing until you've used smalltalk's browsers, inspectors and
debuggers. It's the main thing I really, really miss in python.

I don't know about smalltalk, but, for the Windows user, Boa Contructor
and PythonWin provide a good environment. I think lisp users would also argue for their language. It's really
weird to non-lisp users (much more so than smalltalk is to C/python
programmers) but really powerful.

Anyway, I did not intend to detract from your praise of python. It is a
wonderful language, and my main language right now.

-- Russell

Colin W.

[Steve Lamb]

On 2004-06-04, Colin J. Williams <cj*@sympatico.ca> wrote:

I don't know about smalltalk, but, for the Windows user, Boa Contructor
and PythonWin provide a good environment.

Is Boa still being developed? I looked at it's SF page a few days ago and
was depressed to see that the latest release was a news note pointing to the
CVS repository circa last year. :(

--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

[Aahz]

In article <ro***********************@reader2.panix.com>,
Roy Smith <ro*@panix.com> wrote:

Here's my take on the currently popular languages...

C took off in the late 70's and early 80's because it was so much better
than the alternatives, and because it was wrapped up with Unix (about
which the same thing can be said). C really was (and still is) a very
good language for what it was intended for: low level procedural
programming.

Heh. _The Unix Hater's Handbook_ and "Worse is Better" are just two
examples of disagreement with that statement.

http://research.microsoft.com/~daniel/uhh-download.html
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
--
Aahz (aa**@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

"as long as we like the same operating system, things are cool." --piranha

[Mel Wilson]

In article <ma*************************************@python.or g>,
"Terry Reedy" <tj*****@udel.edu> wrote:

"Cameron Laird" <cl****@lairds.com> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...
I see Python as a or even the successor to Basic, which was invented over
40 years ago. It was the first 'computer programming for everybody' (CP4E)
language. Basic took off in the late 70s with the invention of
microcomputers and the Microsoft port thereto. Its limitations were
apparent by the mid 80s and so Guido invented/developed a new CP4E
language.

C++ / Python == FORTRAN / BASIC
Regards. Mel.