Re: Holy Grail

Peter Cockerell (
Sun, 3 Apr 1994 01:11:50 GMT

Mark C. Carroll ( wrote:
: In article <> (Peter Cockerell) writes:
: >Toma ( wrote:
: >
: >: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some
: >: watery tart threw a sword at you! I mean, if I went round claiming
: >: to be emporer, just cause some moistened bent had lobbed a scimatar
: >
: > ^^ bint, actually
: >: at me, they'd put me away!
: >
: >(Bint's another [derogatory] British English word for woman.)
: >
: >So what's up with this Python language? Is it as crap as Perl?

: Well, I hardly think that Perl is crap...

: Your opinion of Python as compared to Perl is largely dependent on
: matters of personal taste. As a fan of both languages, I'll try to
: express the relative pros and cons of each.

: [Lots of pros and cons deleted]

Thanks for the comparisons. Your cons for Perl v.4 are exactly the
things I don't like about it, so we agree there! V.5 sounds
interesting, but it doesn't seems as though he's done much to improve
the syntax/readability. I'll have to check out Python; I think I'd put
readability/comprehensibility pretty far up on my list of desirable
traits in a language. I'd be interested in what your suspicions about
relative efficiency are, confirmed or not.

: <MC>


"Good. Line on the left, one cross each..."

(Sorry, just seemed kind of appropriate this weekend.)