Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Brown Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:35:21 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <20240624160941.0000646a@yahoo.com> <20240624181006.00003b94@yahoo.com> <20240625113616.000075e0@yahoo.com> <20240626004240.000015bc@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 09:35:22 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cfb67e3f65c64926ce6ab82326618477"; logging-data="2144916"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+zqtSNLpeY5lDuODVceDe71ZyVkZ4sl0=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:nhM+OQKqZyFyqu3eaR6QGwT96/Y= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <20240626004240.000015bc@yahoo.com> Bytes: 3768 On 25/06/2024 23:42, Michael S wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 19:51:31 +0200 > David Brown wrote: > >> On 25/06/2024 17:59, bart wrote: >>> On 25/06/2024 16:12, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 25/06/2024 17:08, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> >>>>>> BTW since you and DB are both keen on products like Python, >>>>> >>>>> I have never posted anything about python here, that I recall. >>>>> >>>>> I use it very infrequently. >>> >>> (It seemed to be a big part of that 8Mloc project of yours) >>> >> >> I got the impression that it was just for some scripting and >> automation. I'm sure if Python were not available, he could happily >> have used Perl, or Lua, or Tcl. I know that's the case for the >> Python code I often have for build automation. >> > > I have hard time imagining that anybody could happily use TCL instead > of Python. Maybe he wouldn't be /happy/ about it (I know I wouldn't!) but for small scripts, you can work in a variety of languages. Usually all you need are decent file handling, good string support, some high-level data structures (at least lists and hashmaps), and automatic memory handling. > >> (/I/ have other code for PC and server programs that are in Python, >> and I don't know of any other languages that would suit my needs and >> wants better there. That's why I chose Python. But I don't remember >> Scott talking about such code in Python.) >> > > For just about anything apart from availably of [mostly free] 3rd-party > libraries and/or of ready-made modules, Ruby is as good or better than > Python. But Python was lucky to reach critical mass first. By now, > Python has better docs as well, but that's relatively recent > development. > I have only looked briefly at Ruby - for some reason it never really appealed to me. There was certainly not enough to make it worth learning when I already had Python. If Python suddenly disappeared, however, then it is certainly a language I'd look into as an alternative.