"Some developers are content with the languages they use for work.
Others experiment with other languages, and others still might make
their own languages. All of these are fine! But I find myself in the
second category. This is exploration of why I personally find languages
so interesting � and further, why I have involved myself with language
development."

<https://derw.substack.com/p/a-love-of-languages?s=r>

Am 27.03.2022 um 18:00 schrieb Jack Lemmon:
> "Some developers are content with the languages they use for work.
> Others experiment with other languages, and others still might make
> their own languages. All of these are fine! But I find myself in the
> second category. This is exploration of why I personally find languages
> so interesting — and further, why I have involved myself with language
> development."
> <https://derw.substack.com/p/a-love-of-languages?s=r>

A developer who doesn't understand generic programming or
OOP is a developer who should beam himself back into the 80s.

In comp.lang.c++ Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
> "Some developers are content with the languages they use for work.
> Others experiment with other languages, and others still might make
> their own languages. All of these are fine! But I find myself in the
> second category. This is exploration of why I personally find languages
> so interesting ? and further, why I have involved myself with language
> development."
>
> <https://derw.substack.com/p/a-love-of-languages?s=r>

From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
twenty languages.

For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
(or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
of Javascript or Haxe.

Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
shoved absolutely *everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.

On 29/03/2022 00:08, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
> better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
> are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
> twenty languages.
>
> For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
> unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
> (or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
> embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
> of Javascript or Haxe.
>
> Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
> shoved absolutely*everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.

I'm embedded these days, and I mostly use C and C++. I've written
Assembler on I don't-know-how-many architectures (I'm read-only on
ARM!(. Pascal would probably come back in minutes, and I don't think
Fortran would take a lot longer. If you asked me to refresh my APL I'd
just refuse... there are others. Does Make count?

But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.

Andy

On 30/03/2022 22:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 00:08, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>  From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
>> better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
>> are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
>> twenty languages.
>>
>> For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
>> unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
>> (or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
>> embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
>> of Javascript or Haxe.
>>
>> Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
>> shoved absolutely*everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.
>
> I'm embedded these days, and I mostly use C and C++. I've written
> Assembler on I don't-know-how-many architectures (I'm read-only on
> ARM!(. Pascal would probably come back in minutes, and I don't think
> Fortran would take a lot longer. If you asked me to refresh my APL I'd
> just refuse... there are others. Does Make count?
>
> But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
>

Python is a useful language to learn. I find that I use it for most of
my PC and server programming. It has its disadvantages compared to C++
- the dynamic features of the language mean you don't get the kind of
compile-time checks that you have in a static language, and of course it
is slower if you are doing heavy processor work. But it is /vastly/
simpler to work with for string processing, anything involving
networking, databases, etc. Your source code is usually a fraction of
the size - it has a very different "programmer efficiency" vs. "run-time
efficiency" balance than C++. For small and simple programs and
scripts, it is extremely handy - I have little Python programs that run
on PC's, servers, Raspberry Pi's, etc. Many of my embedded C and C++
projects have Python scripts in their make process for generating update
files with CRC checks and other data, or for pre-processing data files
(images, web pages, etc.) into data arrays to link into the program.

There is plenty not to like about Python - Python 2 and Python 3
incompatibilities can be a pain, and mixups between tabs and spaces can
drive you crazy. But I've yet to find the "perfect" programming
language for all purposes. Python does not at all replace C or C++, but
it is a useful complement (in my experience).

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:53:39 +0100
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 29/03/2022 00:08, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
>> better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
>> are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
>> twenty languages.
>>
>> For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
>> unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
>> (or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
>> embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
>> of Javascript or Haxe.
>>
>> Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
>> shoved absolutely*everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.
>
>I'm embedded these days, and I mostly use C and C++. I've written
>Assembler on I don't-know-how-many architectures (I'm read-only on
>ARM!(. Pascal would probably come back in minutes, and I don't think
>Fortran would take a lot longer. If you asked me to refresh my APL I'd
>just refuse... there are others. Does Make count?
>
>But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.

If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.

Annoyingly all the AI libraries seem to use Python as their API language
and either a C/C++ API isn't supported or the documentation is non existent
despite the core AI code being written in C/C++. Go figure.

2022-03-31 at 10:29 +0200, David Brown wrote:
> Python is a useful language to learn. [...]
> it is slower if you are doing heavy processor work. But it is
> /vastly/ simpler to work with for string processing, anything
> involving networking, databases, etc. Your source code is usually a
> fraction of the size - it has a very different "programmer
> efficiency" vs. "run-time efficiency" balance than C++. For small
> and simple programs and scripts, it is extremely handy

In this very same context I use PHP as my "go-to scripting language". I
find it much more pleasant than Python.

People often think of PHP as a web-only language, while it is
perfectly good for writing standalone, local scripts.

Mateusz

On 31/03/2022 10:52, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> 2022-03-31 at 10:29 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>> Python is a useful language to learn. [...]
>> it is slower if you are doing heavy processor work. But it is
>> /vastly/ simpler to work with for string processing, anything
>> involving networking, databases, etc. Your source code is usually a
>> fraction of the size - it has a very different "programmer
>> efficiency" vs. "run-time efficiency" balance than C++. For small
>> and simple programs and scripts, it is extremely handy
>
> In this very same context I use PHP as my "go-to scripting language". I
> find it much more pleasant than Python.
>
> People often think of PHP as a web-only language, while it is
> perfectly good for writing standalone, local scripts.
>

I've used PHP for a few scripts too, mostly long ago, before I learned
Python. I /hugely/ prefer Python to PHP, and use it for any significant
webpage server-side scripting. (But PHP is more convenient for small
script bits in an otherwise static html file.)

Experiences and preferences vary, of course. There's room for many
programming languages.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 09:29:51 UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>
> Python is a useful language to learn. I find that I use it for most of
> my PC and server programming. It has its disadvantages compared to C++
> - the dynamic features of the language mean you don't get the kind of
> compile-time checks that you have in a static language, and of course it
> is slower if you are doing heavy processor work. But it is /vastly/
> simpler to work with for string processing, anything involving
> networking, databases, etc. Your source code is usually a fraction of
> the size - it has a very different "programmer efficiency" vs. "run-time
> efficiency" balance than C++. For small and simple programs and
> scripts, it is extremely handy - I have little Python programs that run
> on PC's, servers, Raspberry Pi's, etc. Many of my embedded C and C++
> projects have Python scripts in their make process for generating update
> files with CRC checks and other data, or for pre-processing data files
> (images, web pages, etc.) into data arrays to link into the program.
>
> There is plenty not to like about Python - Python 2 and Python 3
> incompatibilities can be a pain, and mixups between tabs and spaces can
> drive you crazy. But I've yet to find the "perfect" programming
> language for all purposes. Python does not at all replace C or C++, but
> it is a useful complement (in my experience).
>
I had a little job to do. There's a dataset of crossword puzzles that
an American data scientist has collected. They're out of copyright or
abandoned (pre-1965) so I can use the data for Crossword Designer.
I don't have a good algorithm for designing American-style blank grids,
so my idea was to just take the girds and store them in the program.

A perfect job for Python. Except I don't know Python. So I did it in C.
I'd forgotten how to use the dirent.h functions, and had to do some
exploratory programming. Then I wrote a little function to recurse
the directory. My Mac asked me if I wanted to allow terminal to access
my photos folder. I'd forgotten about the ".." link and it had recursed up
the directory tree and down through my entire file system. No damage
done, but alarming.

It took about an afternoon to get the data into compileable C form.
So I can well believe that Python is more productive. I was burned with
Perl and haven't looked seriously at scripting since. I seldom need it
for the type of programming I do.

On 2022-03-31, Mateusz Viste <mateusz@xyz.invalid> wrote:
> 2022-03-31 at 10:29 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>> Python is a useful language to learn. [...]
>> it is slower if you are doing heavy processor work. But it is
>> /vastly/ simpler to work with for string processing, anything
>> involving networking, databases, etc. Your source code is usually a
>> fraction of the size - it has a very different "programmer
>> efficiency" vs. "run-time efficiency" balance than C++. For small
>> and simple programs and scripts, it is extremely handy
>
> In this very same context I use PHP as my "go-to scripting language". I
> find it much more pleasant than Python.

My go-to language is TXR. It has a whole-document pattern-matching
language, and feature-rich Lisp dialect: powerful macro system, object
orientation with multiple inheritance, laziness, pattern matching,
bignum integers, FFI with an expressive type system: has everything down
to bitfields, and alignment and packing options for struct members.
There is a compiler (to a virtual machine), with multiple levels of
optimizations: constant folding, dead code elimination, control and data
flow optimizations. All character data in TXR is wide characters, and
text I/O is UTF-8.

I wrote this myself, starting back in 2009; currently it's in in its
274-th public release. I wanted a language exactly like this and got it!

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal

In comp.lang.c++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
>
> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.

The thing is that even you don't write Python it's likely you'll encounter
it in one form of another. Sometimes even in the form of having to understand
what a Python program is doing, or even change/fix it.

This is because, as mentioned, Python is shoved *everywhere* (regardless of
whather it's a good choice or not).

I wouldn't be surprised if Python is at this moment running on the surface
of Mars, and near the Lagrange-2 point.

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 06:00:19 -0000 (UTC)
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>In comp.lang.c++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
>>
>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>
>The thing is that even you don't write Python it's likely you'll encounter
>it in one form of another. Sometimes even in the form of having to understand
>what a Python program is doing, or even change/fix it.
>
>This is because, as mentioned, Python is shoved *everywhere* (regardless of
>whather it's a good choice or not).
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if Python is at this moment running on the surface
>of Mars, and near the Lagrange-2 point.

I don't think its used in the spacecraft but I can tell you (no, I can't tell
you how I know) that Python *is* used in the ground systems for certain space
missions in certain areas.

On 04/04/2022 09:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 06:00:19 -0000 (UTC)
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
>>>
>>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>>
>> The thing is that even you don't write Python it's likely you'll encounter
>> it in one form of another. Sometimes even in the form of having to understand
>> what a Python program is doing, or even change/fix it.
>>
>> This is because, as mentioned, Python is shoved *everywhere* (regardless of
>> whather it's a good choice or not).
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if Python is at this moment running on the surface
>> of Mars, and near the Lagrange-2 point.
>
> I don't think its used in the spacecraft but I can tell you (no, I can't tell
> you how I know) that Python *is* used in the ground systems for certain space
> missions in certain areas.
>
"To get a job" ... that's one thing I _won't_ need it for. I'm retiring
at the end of the month.

You mentioned space. I know _exactly_ where I was on 15th July 1969.

Andy

On 4/5/2022 1:10 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:

> You mentioned space. I know _exactly_ where I was on 15th July 1969.

As do I. I was waiting for the Apollo 11 launch on the 16th.

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
<t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:

>If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.

The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
packages.

Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc. All those languages continue to
thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
done.

vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>

....and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:18:57 -0000 (UTC)
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
><t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>
>>If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>
>The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
>packages.
>
>Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc. All those languages continue to
>thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
>and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
>done.

You could use the same argument for Java. Poor language but lots of libraries.
Cross platform runtime support doesn't matter nearly as much now as it did in
the 90s when Java came out due to VMs and the cloud.

>....and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
>dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.

Agreed.

On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
> <t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>
>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>
> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
> packages.
>
> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc. All those languages continue to
> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
> done.
>
> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>
>
> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.

Why would you say that? Pick the right language for the task in hand.
Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
more of the useful components already in its library (internet
protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
need in C++. There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
memory efficiency or disk space.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
>> <t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>>
>>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>>
>> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
>> packages.
>>
>> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc. All those languages continue to
>> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
>> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
>> done.
>>
>> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>
>>
>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>
>Why would you say that? Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>need in C++. There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>memory efficiency or disk space.

Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
of *nix that matters.

On 07/04/2022 11:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
>>> <t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>>>
>>>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>>>
>>> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
>>> packages.
>>>
>>> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc. All those languages continue to
>>> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
>>> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
>>> done.
>>>
>>> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>
>>>
>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>>
>> Why would you say that? Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>> Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>> more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>> protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>> package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>> need in C++. There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>> the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>> memory efficiency or disk space.
>
> Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
> of *nix that matters.
>

It is not uncommon for things like a package manager to use other common
utilities - including shells. But bash alone is not a language you'd
use for a task like this.

Am 07.04.22 um 11:42 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>>
>> Why would you say that? Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>> Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>> more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>> protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>> package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>> need in C++. There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>> the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>> memory efficiency or disk space.
>
> Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
> of *nix that matters.
>

Bash is a terrible language, if you plan to write larger programs in it.
Yes, it is possible, but the quoting rules (automatic expansion unless
you carefully quote everything) will lead to many data-dependent bugs,
like surprise with whitespace in paths and so on. Remember Shellshock?

Additionally, it's hard to get Bash working on Windows. Bash is rather
useless without a bunch of other tools like awk, sed, cp, mv, find, ...

It is way easier to get a working Python installation.

Christian

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
<t2mbmf$bvv$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:

>On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
>David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
>>> <t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>>>
>>>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>>>
>>> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
>>> packages.
>>>
>>> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc. All those languages continue to
>>> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
>>> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
>>> done.
>>>
>>> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>
>>>
>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>>
>>Why would you say that? Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>>Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>>more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>>protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>>package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>>need in C++. There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>>the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>>memory efficiency or disk space.
>
>Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
>of *nix that matters.

You forgot </sarcasm>
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:54:27 +0200
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>Am 07.04.22 um 11:42 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
>>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>>>
>>> Why would you say that? Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>>> Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>>> more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>>> protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>>> package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>>> need in C++. There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>>> the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>>> memory efficiency or disk space.
>>
>> Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
>> of *nix that matters.
>>
>
>Bash is a terrible language, if you plan to write larger programs in it.
>Yes, it is possible, but the quoting rules (automatic expansion unless
>you carefully quote everything) will lead to many data-dependent bugs,
>like surprise with whitespace in paths and so on. Remember Shellshock?
>
>Additionally, it's hard to get Bash working on Windows. Bash is rather

Windows installers are completely seperate to linux and mac installers so
thats irrelevant.

>useless without a bunch of other tools like awk, sed, cp, mv, find, ...

Well obviously bash is just glue logic. But the point is its always available
unlike Python or even worse Java (does Oracle still require java to install
its software?)

In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
> Additionally, it's hard to get Bash working on Windows. Bash is rather
> useless without a bunch of other tools like awk, sed, cp, mv, find, ...
>
> It is way easier to get a working Python installation.

Is Python any easier?

It's not like you can just run "apt install python" in Windows.

(Of course in modern Windows there's WSL which ought to make it much easier
to use Python, bash, or almost any other (non-graphical) unix tool you want.)

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 11:49:16 UTC+1, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:54:27 +0200
> Christian Gollwitzer <auri...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >Am 07.04.22 um 11:42 schrieb Mut...@dastardlyhq.com:
> >> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
> >> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >>> On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
> >>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
> >>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a
> >>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
> >>>
> >>> Why would you say that? Pick the right language for the task in hand.
> >>> Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
> >>> more of the useful components already in its library (internet
> >>> protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
> >>> package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
> >>> need in C++. There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
> >>> the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
> >>> memory efficiency or disk space.
> >>
> >> Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
> >> of *nix that matters.
> >>
> >
> >Bash is a terrible language, if you plan to write larger programs in it.
> >Yes, it is possible, but the quoting rules (automatic expansion unless
> >you carefully quote everything) will lead to many data-dependent bugs,
> >like surprise with whitespace in paths and so on. Remember Shellshock?
> >
> >Additionally, it's hard to get Bash working on Windows. Bash is rather
> Windows installers are completely seperate to linux and mac installers so
> thats irrelevant.
> >useless without a bunch of other tools like awk, sed, cp, mv, find, ...
> Well obviously bash is just glue logic. But the point is its always available
> unlike Python or even worse Java (does Oracle still require java to install
> its software?)
>
The dependency problem is severe. The worst problem is mismatched diamond
dependencies, where one component, call it A, depends on C, and another component,
call it B, also depends on C, but the versions of C that they require are different.

Not as severe, but very time consuming, are lasange-dependencies, where one
thing depnds on another, depends on another. However eventually youu get to
the bottom of the lasange and something already installed or directly obtainable.
But it can take a long time, with potential things going subtly wrong at every stage.

On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Additionally, it's hard to get Bash working on Windows. Bash is rather
>> useless without a bunch of other tools like awk, sed, cp, mv, find, ...
>>
>> It is way easier to get a working Python installation.
>
> Is Python any easier?
>
> It's not like you can just run "apt install python" in Windows.
>

Installing Python on Windows is simple - using the standard Windows
installation method. Go to "www.python.org", click "Downloads", click
"Windows", and download and install it. (Or perhaps skip a click or two
by just googling "install python" on a Windows machine.)

If you want to do more complicated Python work on Windows, and have
multiple versions installed, it can get a little more complicated. But
for simple "install the latest Python", it's easy.

But anyone making a Python program that they want to make easy for
Windows can also use "py2exe" (or a similar system - there are a few to
choose from) that combines your Python code along with the Python
runtime, interpreter and required libraries, into a single exe file. It
can be quite big - you probably have a minimum size of about 8 or 10 MB,
but that's rarely a problem. The user gets the convenience of
installing it and running it as a stand-alone program with no extra
dependencies, while the developer gets the convenience of writing in
Python with all its high-level libraries.

The great majority of general-purpose Linux systems already have Python
installed by default - so the usual Linux installation method is to do
nothing. (The only relatively modern Linux systems I have seen that
don't have Python don't have bash either - they have busybox for their
shell.)

Installing bash, awk, sed, and friends on Windows is not rocket science
either, but you need to know more - generally, the best way IMHO (other
than WSL or similar) is to install msys2. And you can get Python with
that too :-) (To get vaguely back to the newsgroups' topic, msys2 is
also a good way to get gcc, g++, make, binutils, and such programs for
use on Windows.)

> (Of course in modern Windows there's WSL which ought to make it much easier
> to use Python, bash, or almost any other (non-graphical) unix tool you want.)