Python vs. Io

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

If you've switch from Python to Io, what will you do with the answers

to these questions? Use them for good or evil? Will you switch back
from Io to Python?
--dang

If there are good enough responses, I'll use Python. I just wanted to
know a reason why Python is better. Also, these responses might be
used to make Io better (since it's a young language).

Daniel Ehrenberg

 

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

I think the point is, why on earth would you want to do something like

that? If you want a language you can use to make programs that make
no sense to anyone but the author, Perl should be more than sufficient
for your needs.

Nobody uses Perl because they like its illegibility, they think (for
some reason) that it's more powerful.
As for the flexibility of Io, there's a big difference between
flexibility and illegibility. Whenever a new, more powerful
programming language comes out, everybody says it's too flexible.
Fortran people were saying that about C, C people were saying it about
C++ and Java, and C++ and Java people are still saying it about
Python. Dynamic typing? That's so error-prone, they say. Flexible
block syntax? Code is "illegible", you say.

Daniel Ehrenberg

 

[Josiah Carlson]

If there are good enough responses, I'll use Python. I just wanted to

know a reason why Python is better. Also, these responses might be
used to make Io better (since it's a young language).

Daniel Ehrenberg

From your responses, you seem to prefer a /flexibility/ in IO syntax
and semantics that will never be attainable in Python.

Python isn't about allowing different syntax or semantics, it is about
having a reasonable set of syntax and semantics along with a reasonable
object, class, module and package structure, resulting in a language
that allows the vast majority of algorithms, data structures, and
/ideas/ to be implemented in a way that is both easy to write and to
understand.

I would say something similar about IO, but I don't know what it is
about (and I am too turned off by its syntax to find out).

Using metaphors; when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Me? I've got 3 hammers: Python, C/C++, Lisp. I have not yet met a nail
that wasn't properly pounded with my Python hammer. Nails:
data processing
databases
sockets (both async with asyncore and sync with threads)
gui development
data structure implementation
prototyping
etc.

Now, a few of those could easily be hammered with either C/C++ or Lisp,
but I wouldn't have been able to built the apartment complexes with
C/C++ or Lisp that I was able to with Python.


What you are asking us, conceptually, is what hammer you should use.
The hell if we care what hammer you use, we hang out here because /we/
enjoy using the Python hammer. Of course it would be nice for you to
use the Python hammer and give to the community, but I'm sure the IO
community feels the same way - so whatever you want, I'm sure it will be
fine.

- Josiah

 

[Erik Max Francis]

Whenever a new, more powerful
programming language comes out, everybody says it's too flexible.
Fortran people were saying that about C, C people were saying it about
C++ and Java, ...

C people were saying that about Java?

Look, you like Io better than Python. Fine. You're not going to be
convincing others that you're right by simply repeating it over and over
again. Io and Python cater to different styles; if your personal style
is more in sync with Io, then so be it. But someone whose personal
style is more in sync with Python than Io is simply not going to be
swayed by your largely stylistic arguments.

 

[Erik Max Francis]

If there are good enough responses, I'll use Python. I just wanted to
know a reason why Python is better. Also, these responses might be
used to make Io better (since it's a young language).

Why is difference necessarily better or worse? Sometimes different is
just different and whether that's better or worse is a subjective
judgement call on which there will be no general consensus.