Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Origins of Python

inference-review.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: The Origins of Python

#51

Post by g42gregory »

wheelerof4te wrote: post #49
eachro wrote: post #31

What are other good options for intro programming languages if not python?

Learn JavaScript if you want to build web applications and/or websites. Learn C if you want to do low-level programming. Learn Java if you want to torture yours...I mean, write and maintain enterprise applications. Yes, that.

Just a small comment on JavaScript and web: it’s perfectly acceptable to build websites of arbitrary complexity by just using server programming, say in Python/Django/Flask and HTML5. I find HTML5 as a valid substitute for JavaScript. Not everything could be done in HTML5, but perhaps things that couldn’t be done, shouldn’t be done anyway.

Re: The Origins of Python

#52

Post by spenrose »

Ruby and Go both adopted extensively from Python, but both rejected the process described in OP of designing a language by iterative experimentation to determine how coders would experience design choices. Instead, each relied on the judgment of a handful of experienced insiders. "*I* know which parts of Python are good and which suck; no need to run my ideas by a few dozen coders before committing to them."

Perhaps not coincidentally, neither has displaced Python. Go obviously had powerful backing from Google. I believe Ruby had enormous tailwinds from the need of the Java community c. 2005 to find an interpreted language, but not one with as mature a community as Python's was at the time. Ruby was at the sweet spot of "usable, but with plenty of niches left for alpha geeks looking to write blog posts."

Finally, I hypothesize the Amber-Brown-batteries-included and walrus-operator kerfuffles demonstrate the limits of managing infrastructure such as Python with the RFC / Usenet model.

Re: The Origins of Python

#53

Post by agumonkey »

sesm wrote: post #50
eachro wrote: post #31

What are other good options for intro programming languages if not python?

There was a good ‘Programming Languages’ MOOC on Coursera from University of Washington. It used 3 languages in this order: Standard ML, Racket and Ruby.

Did make a lot of newcomers go insane on the irc channel we used to chat.

I think a HtDP based course with a scheme is still the best to learn to "program"

Re: The Origins of Python

#55

Post by johnisgood »

There was a recent thread about the Amoeba[1] operating system for which Python was initially created. I mentioned Sprite[2], for (or from) which Tcl was initially created.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba_(operating_system)

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(operating_system)

Re: The Origins of Python

#56

Post by pjmlp »

spenrose wrote: post #52

Ruby and Go both adopted extensively from Python, but both rejected the process described in OP of designing a language by iterative experimentation to determine how coders would experience design choices. Instead, each relied on the judgment of a handful of experienced insiders. "*I* know which parts of Python are good and which suck; no need to run my ideas by a few dozen coders before committing to them." Perhaps…

We hardly had any need for a slow language without any kind of JIT and a basic GC.

Re: The Origins of Python

#58

Post by pjmlp »

rightbyte wrote: post #3

I feel Python changes and have changed too much to be a good introduction language anymore. It is not possible for a from zero beginner to read ordinary Python code with decorators, generators or what not and understand it. Way too many concepts. It is being choose by intertia at this point and have been ruined for the original target user by former target users who are now professional programmers using it at work.

Many of those concepts were already present in the language for the last 20 years.

Re: The Origins of Python

#59

Post by pjmlp »

rightbyte wrote: post #5
musingsole wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MicroPython or CircuitPython have become better entry points than the full language. Python grew up and has been chosen to solve a lot of complex, important problems. This has lead to the language ballooning to become not just good but excellent for those problems (data science). Some of it might be fluff; much of it might not be relevant to your style or problem space.

Ye for the professional programmers using Python I guess the changes are welcome. It is easier to keep up with additions over time rather than getting them all at once. C++ has the same problem, but it's selling point has never been easy to use.

C++ during the 1990's was easy enough to be learnt by high school kids.

Re: The Origins of Python

#60

Post by bb88 »

spenrose wrote: post #52

Ruby and Go both adopted extensively from Python, but both rejected the process described in OP of designing a language by iterative experimentation to determine how coders would experience design choices. Instead, each relied on the judgment of a handful of experienced insiders. "*I* know which parts of Python are good and which suck; no need to run my ideas by a few dozen coders before committing to them." Perhaps…

A decade or so ago there was an idea that "patterns" (Gang of Four) needed to exist because the underlying language (Java, etc) was limited in it's power or expressiveness.

Go is opinionated, and much of that has hurt the language -- with the go loop semantics coming to mind. Instead of realizing their mistake early and fixing it back in 2009ish, they doubled down on it. Here in 2022, they finally opened it back up for discussion.

https://github.com/golang/go/discussions/56010

Post reply on HN