XPost: comp.lang.misc   
   From: janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com   
      
   On 14.06.2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:   
   >> [python]   
   >   
   >   PERL *can* be concise. It's also closer to a 'shell-script'   
   >   language, which makes it more challenging to write AND   
   >   understand six months later.   
   >   
   >   Frankly, Python is just generally 'better' these days.   
   >   Maybe not AS 'concise' but more 'readable' AND easier   
   >   to understand six months from now. The speed is now   
   >   'adequate' and Python-4 is supposed to be even faster.   
   >   
   >   There is some computer stuff that really should be done   
   >   in 'C' (I remember when it was the cool NEW lang !) ...   
   >   but now I'm far more likely to write in Python for the   
   >   abovementioned reasons.   
      
   >   And hey, BASIC still exists ... though not as nicely   
   >   structured it can STILL get the job done. Also consider   
   >   one of the 'C-shells'.   
      
   This last paragraph is disturbing. Of course you can also   
   use, say, INTERCAL to "get the job done", but is that the   
   measure of things!?   
      
   Just recently I picked a piece of old BASIC code - granted,   
   it was not one of the fancier new BASIC dialects but back   
   from the "glory mainframe days" - and tried to understand   
   this trash in an attempt to create (in a refactoring task)   
   some structured code from it (Algol 68 in this case). That   
   was a horrible, quite time-consuming attempt (and yet I   
   achieved only something like an "80% solution").   
      
   Also mentioning the "C shells" for programming; I thought   
   meanwhile (after half a centenary!) we should not mention   
   the C-shells in any contexts of "sensible programming".   
      
   >   
   >   Since the 60s, seems like EVERYBODY had their "better   
   >   idea" about programming languages and styles. However   
   >   only a very FEW have stood the test of time. I can   
   >   still write some COBOL and FORTRAN ... occasionally   
   >   do so Just For Fun ... but their overall utility has   
   >   greatly diminished compared to later langs.   
      
   Well, I think this should be differentiated a bit...   
   > EVERYBODY had their "better idea"   
   appears to me, on the longer time scale, unnecessarily   
   disparaging.   
      
   The time constraints, motivations based on application   
   areas, language designers, and the creation processes   
   were quite manifold (without going into the details; it   
   would go to far here[*]).   
      
   What we observe more recently is, it seems, that folks   
   (individuals) _just write_ their own languages if they   
   have some ideas (maybe "idee fixe") what they'd like   
   to have. Not surprising given that IT was historically   
   restricted to a small community of experts, and now we   
   have not only more experts but also "everyone" owns or   
   has access to computers.   
      
   The "test of time" is, in my experience, also not any   
   good measurement of excellence in language design.   
   Language were designed and fit for some purpose. Some   
   that shouldn't be touched with a barge pole survived,   
   others didn't make it; here politics and marketing are   
   and were also substantial relevant factors to consider.   
      
   But languages are not and end in itself, they're just   
   tools that should be used as they fit in the projects.   
      
   >   
   >   (I *do* still often write in PASCAL though - see   
   >   it as a kind of 'poetry' :-)   
      
   I understand that very well! There's some languages   
   that introduced noteworthy concepts, others are just   
   pretty, some simple to use, or easy to get programs   
   right.   
      
   Janis   
      
   [*] Compare the mentioned factors for FORTRAN, COBOL,   
   PL-I, Simula, Algol 60, BASIC, Algol 68, Pascal, Ada,   
   "C", C++, Java, Perl, Javacript, PHP, Python, to pick   
   a few languages with specific creation characteristics.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)