From Newsgroup: comp.programming

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> writes:
[...]

There WILL be a Python-4 ... have no doubts. Developers
will work at it obsessively.

Figure at least one year, maybe two.

[...]

How do you know that? Do you have inside information? Why are you
unable to provide firm evidence that refutes the clear statements
that there are no plans for Python-4?

I don't really expect you to answer in any meaningful way. Feel free
to drop this discussion.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.programming

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.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.programming

On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:30:36 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

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"

Yeah, the Elder BASICs are a different story. FreeBasic made a fairly
decent language out of the QB lineage, though - still use that semi-
regularly for proof-of-concept stuff and quick li'l one-off utilities.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.programming

On 06.08.2025 17:17, John Ames wrote:

On Wed, 6 Aug 2025 16:30:36 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:

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"

Yeah, the Elder BASICs are a different story. FreeBasic made a fairly
decent language out of the QB lineage, though - still use that semi- regularly for proof-of-concept stuff and quick li'l one-off utilities.

(For "one-off utilities" I prefer using some standard language
or tool; for me that's not different from other development.)

One problem with BASIC is that, as they say, there are as many
different dialects as different systems running it. I was very
astonished to find [in Wikipedia] a list of 373 BASIC dialects,
and yet more astonished that one of the four BASICs I used in
the past (Olivetti, Commodore, Wang, Sharp) was even missing;
the Olivetti thing having been a very interesting BASIC beast!

I actually started with BASIC but used it only a couple years.
Once other languages were available I wholeheartedly switched.

Janis

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2