On 5/26/06, Paul D. Fernhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, still, to agree with your sentiment, who would want to use a buggy > new system that in addition to all of Python's warts (*) > http://www.amk.ca/python/writing/warts
Quite an old document (2003), many warts fixed. > Still, it has weaknesses, especially for entry-level GUI programming. I don't regard the "GUI weakness" as inherent in the Python language. One could argue it's stronger at GUIs in the hands of a pro, because able to work with a variety of libraries, vs. one built in solution. Event-based GUI programming is hard to get right period. > Makes me wonder why Python is still struggling with questions of what is > the best GUI development tool for it? Why do we need a "best" one? > Or why we think CP4E is needed given Python exists? Because languages don't just teach themselves? > Python also fails in practice with modifying programs while they > run, which becomes a big issue for intermediate-level programs and their > programmers. You're talking about event loop confusions, e.g. testing a Tk app while running in Tk? Using a text editor, with shell-based reload, allows GUI programs to be debugged on the fly in my experience. > Actually, another Python wart is that variable names in a function definition > become > part of the API (e.g. "myfunction(x=10, y=20)" which is a gross violation of > the notion > that a function definition, including local variables, should be independent > of > specifying how it is called.) Please explain this notion further. I thought one point of a function definition was to define how to call it i.e. to specify what variables to pass and how. myfunction( ) and myfunction(4,3) would both work in the above case -- Python is quite flexible in this way (not good?). Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
