On Jan 31, 2:02 pm, van...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Jeff M. <mass...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > s" Hello, world!" email< m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> send-email
> > It's equally brief, just as readable, and there's just as much code
> > that exists underneath it,
> > ...
>
> Yes, but... what would this code look like if you wanted to append
> the string in the variable "sig" to the contents? In Python it'd
> go from:
>
> [..snip example..]
>
> In any sort of "standard model" Forth, the would-be caller is going to
> have to deal with sizing and allocating a new buffer, and copying the
> contents into it. [..]
What makes you think that Python isn't doing the same thing? You are
just abstracted away from that. I could provide you with a "strings
utility" vocabulary in Forth that allows you to do the same. Now is
Python better?
The only difference is whether or not I (the end user) have to code
the "backend" myself and whether or not I have time to do it. And
there's the rub. During an average week, much of what I need to
program is something I need to work "now" and I don't have the time to
program a hash table, string library, and memory manager - so, I use a
language with those features pre-packaged for me.
I'm not suggesting language X is better than Y or even that Y sucks.
Just that "compactness" - as an argument for a language being good (or
bad) - is a red herring. :)
Jeff M.
|
