> Actually, that's not true. Languages such as Perl and Python 
> were designed to write scripts, not to code entire 
> applications. 

Prove it.  Prove what the creators and initial shapers of the language
intended!  There is an argumentative fallacy called "hasty generalization" -
surely you know what I'm talking about.  This is a baseless claim without
warrant or data, and is a generalization tantamount to saying something
silly like "Lisp was only created to give Emacs users a way to change their

> Python is an exception because it can be 
> successfully used to code large applications, unlike some 
> other scripting languages. 

Have you considered that you are trying to create a rule and find a way for
the exception not to prove it false.  Has it occurred that you are creating
a false dichotomy?  You sound as silly as clerics in medieval Europe in
denial about retrograde motion of the planets in the night sky - after all,
we all know that the Earth is the center of the universe.  That analogy is
apt because it is the same pattern of logic - try to scapegoat the obvious
hole in your theory as an irrelevant outlier, label it, and hope that an
inquisition of name-calling destroys it.

> So it's best to call Python a 
> "scripting programming language" because it has this dual 
> nature. 

So what really matters is what we call it?  I must make a note to remember
how much more important this is than how we use it.

> All said and done, I prefer to use Java over Python 
> for large applications 

Good for you; there are others that share your tastes, but that's all it is:
preference.  A good coder could create an equally powerful suitably large
application in either language in the same amount of time.  The only
difference is that the Python coder's wrists hurt 75% less from doing 25% of
the typing, and the Python coder's peers' eyes hurt 75% less as they can
read code quicker.

> simply because it's cleaner and has 
> mechanisms in place that support reusability of components 
> and extensibility. 

Huh?  You can do pretty much the same designs, patterns, etc in Python.  Why
does language make a difference here in re-usability.  Perhaps you are
arguing for single-inheritance as a constraint (which you can self-impose in
design in Python).

> Also, OO concepts such as abstraction and 
> inheritance are well defined in Java.

And they aren't in python.  I think this is just another baseless statement.

> Also, both compiled and interpreted languages have their 
> advantages and disadvantages.

The real Java/Python debate is about dynamic strong typing versus static
strong typing.  Such debates have already been had, ad nauseum, elsewhere.
This "interpreted" or "scripting versus programming" angle on a language
flamewar is neither new, nor insightful.


 Sean Upton                              SignOnSanDiego.com
 Site Technology Supervisor     The San Diego Union-Tribune
 619.718.5241                 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 350 Camino De La Reina                 San Diego, CA 92108

  Plone Powered!  plone.org  ++  python.org  ++  zope.org  

Zope maillist  -  Zope@zope.org
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )

Reply via email to