Slashdot Mirror
Python Conference Coming Soon
nnorwitz writes "PyCon 2004 is coming to Washington, DC at the end of March. It's a great place to meet lots of smart people and learn new things. Many interesting discussions go far beyond Python into other programming languages and topics. We should find out more about the Pie-thon, the OSAF since Mitch Kapor is the keynote speaker. There may even be a few surprises. The price is only $175, but early bird registration ends soon. It's not too late to submit a presentation either. I hope to see lots of new faces this year! I want to talk to some Perl and Ruby zealots^Wconverts^Wprogrammers. :-)"
Unlikely. Why use Ruby or Python when Common Lisp is better than either. Like most scripting languages, python is slowly reinventing lisp, badly. This is no accident. Like Gosling and Java, van Rossum drip-feeds lisp concepts to his willing sheep rather than truly innovating.
I read Python books/sites and they say with a straight face "the great thing about Python is there's only one way to do things" .. what they fail to mention is, one way *per Python version*.
I first used Python at 1.5 when it was pushed as a "prototyping language". I'm not coming back until they finish figuring out their object model and scoping rules.
So you're saying Python evolves. Doesn't C, C++, Java, and ... Ruby do the same? It is easy to have many Python versions installed and usable at the same time. It is as easy to add packages to any of the installed versions. Is it easier to manage change in Ruby?
Someday, a bright Pythoner will get hit by lightning and realize, "hey, str(obj) just calls obj.__repr__() .. why the heck don't we all just call obj.__repr__() directly? And do we really need *four* underscores? And do we really need to type 'self' all the time???" At that moment, the Rubification will begin.
You're confusing 'str(obj)' with 'repr(obj)' but that's OK - you're Ruby Zealot. I think you're to picky and if I was as picky about Ruby, here's what I'm reading here : 'obj.__id__' is the same as 'obj#id' and 'obj.__send__' is the same as 'obj#send'. So not only that I see four underscores (was it borrowed from Python by any chance?) and two ways of doing the same (there are more examples on the web page) but there is another peculiarity: '#' has two meanings: you can use it as in 'obj#id' and you can use it to start comments!
Now about 'self'. It comes from Smalltalk and Matz (creator of Ruby) claims that Ruby borrows ideas from Smalltalk. So I don't see your point. On top of that, you don't have to use 'self'. You can use 'this', 'that', and 'other' or even 'S' if you aim at brevity.
Why do you take the posting of a Python Conference as an attempt to get you to switch? Some of us happen to feel quite secure in our choices and don't take the success of other languages as a threat or conversion attempt. You should try it sometime, where "it" is being confident and secure in your own choices.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Why do you take the posting of a Python Conference as an attempt to get you to switch?
;-)
;-)
Well, as you might recall, the original post of the story contained the following at the end:
I want to talk to some Perl and Ruby zealots^Wconverts^Wprogrammers.
So I was just obiging
I suppose that sentence was a bit ambiguous as it could mean that he/she wants to talk to people who had converted* to Perl or Ruby from Python (or any other language), but I read it as he/she wanted to talk to people who had converted* from Perl or Ruby to Python. Given that it's a Python conference being held in DC, I highly doubt that anyone who had converted to Ruby would bother to show up for her/him to talk to as they would likely be attending Ruby conferences, therefore I suspect that the latter interpretation was the intended meaning. Given this, it was not too much of a stretch to think that the poster was looking for converts* from Ruby to Python, so I merely expressed my doubts about wanting (or needing) to make such a conversion*.
*NOTE: the useage of the words 'convert' or it's derivitives ('conversion', 'converts', etc) should be construed to mean that that the language in question (as in 'I am a Ruby convert') is the favorite programming language known and used by the person uttering (or typing) the phrase, however it should not be contrued to mean that the language in question is the only programming language known/used by the person uttering (or typing) the phrase.
If it's still not clear, I'll try it again with some indentation
'Different strokes for different folks' as they say down at the retirement home