OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: Python v Perl (was Re: Anti-Virus Queue Scanners)
From: Nick Seidenman (nicksargate.net)
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 15:16:40 CDT

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Vivek Khera wrote:

> >>>>> "MH" == Matthew Hawkins <matthewtopic.com.au> writes:
>
> MH> On 2000-08-31 07:35:17 +0000, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> MH> What I'd argue for Python is that it would definately be far more
> MH> readable and maintainable than Perl. Of course, that's not really a
> MH> fair statement because Perl is a write-only language, which rules out
> MH> maintenance altogether :-)
>
> Whenever I see rubbish like this, I like to point out this old article
> from Usenet I saved many, many, moons ago. It seems the more things
> change, the more they stay the same.

Perhaps you've never used python, or at least not in a project of some
size, working with other programmers.

While newcomers to python recoil in horror at the use of indentation to
denote block structure, this one element of the language results in far
more readable programs than those written in perl or other "free form"
languages. Sure, you _can_ write readable code in perl, but that tends to
rely on self-discipline, and there is nothing to enforce any sort of
homogeneity accross perl programmers. All of the perl code I've seen is
write-only.

> I guarantee you that people can and will write unmaintainable Python
> code and people can and do write maintainable Perl code.

Well, I'll concede that THIS is one thing that's much easier to do in
perl. :-)

> You know, this C-vs-Ada-control-structures argument is totally pointless
> and deadly boring. Neither language is ideal, but neither is fatally
> flawed, and the differences between *programmers* are so large that they
> totally swamp differences between *languages* in most practical situations.
> Languages cannot save you from yourself except in relatively minor ways.
> Despite repeated attempts (including Ada) to develop languages in which
> it would be impossible to write bad programs, the bad programmers have
> consistently, and usually fairly easily, found ways to continue making
> their messes.

Aposit. It's comparing free-form, procedure-oriented languages.
Python is generally not free-form. When it comes to how the language
looks, there isn't all that much difference at all between C and Ada; the
differences are a matter of function rather than form.

On a personal note, python is fundamentally devoid of elements of
religious inculcation. Larry Wall wastes no opportunity to use his
language to "witness for Jesus". I'd just as soon he kept his religion
(and his now archaic language) to himself.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Nick Seidenman, CISSP | "Ugly programs are like ugly
 Senior Security Consultant | suspension bridges: they're much
 Hyperon, Inc. | more liable to collapse than
 www.hyperon.com | pretty ones." -Eric Raymond