Re: Python vs. C#

Discussion in 'Python' started by Terry Reedy, Aug 10, 2003.

  1. Terry Reedy

    Terry Reedy Guest

    "Brandon J. Van Every" <> wrote in message
    news:3f357a9b@shknews01...
    > What can I do with Python that I can't do with C#?


    Given that all Turing complete languages are theoretically equivalent,
    nothing, either way.

    But...

    > So again my question is, language-wise, what can I get done with

    Python that
    > I can't get done with C#?


    Same question, same answer. but...

    > What is easy to express in Python, that is
    > tedious, difficult, [or impossible] to express in C#?


    Different question, more realistic answer...

    I don't believe there are many C# experts who post here, so I'll share
    the teeny bit I know from other postings.

    The smart people who investigated integrating Python as a full-fledged
    ..NET CLR language gave up because they found the [common intermediate
    language] to be unsuitable for Python. I believe it had to do with
    dynamic typing vs. C#, etc, static typing. So I speculate that
    generic programming (writing functions that work with any behaviorally
    compatible objects) is much easier in Python than C#.

    Maybe someone more knowledgable will chime in.

    Terry J. Reedy
     
    Terry Reedy, Aug 10, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Terry Reedy" <> writes:

    > "Brandon J. Van Every" <> wrote in message
    > news:3f357a9b@shknews01...
    > > What can I do with Python that I can't do with C#?

    >
    > Given that all Turing complete languages are theoretically equivalent,
    > nothing, either way.


    Turing equivalence is probably the least interesting property of any
    programming language and says absolutely nothing about its suitability for
    real programming tasks.
     
    Christopher Barber, Aug 11, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Terry Reedy

    Harry George Guest

    Christopher Barber <> writes:

    > "Terry Reedy" <> writes:
    >
    > > "Brandon J. Van Every" <> wrote in message
    > > news:3f357a9b@shknews01...
    > > > What can I do with Python that I can't do with C#?

    > >
    > > Given that all Turing complete languages are theoretically equivalent,
    > > nothing, either way.

    >
    > Turing equivalence is probably the least interesting property of any
    > programming language and says absolutely nothing about its suitability for
    > real programming tasks.
    >


    True, and that was probably why it was mentioned. Personally I make
    the same point by saying "Sure we could do it in XYZ language, but
    then we could also do it assembler. On the other hand, if you want it
    done on time, with the available resources, and a hope of maintaining
    it later, then look at Python."



    >


    --

    6-6M31 Knowledge Management
    Phone: (425) 342-5601
     
    Harry George, Aug 11, 2003
    #3
  4. Terry Reedy

    Terry Reedy Guest

    "Christopher Barber" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > "Terry Reedy" <> writes:
    >
    > > "Brandon J. Van Every" <> wrote in

    message
    > > news:3f357a9b@shknews01...
    > > > What can I do with Python that I can't do with C#?

    > >
    > > Given that all Turing complete languages are theoretically

    equivalent,
    > > nothing, either way.

    >
    > Turing equivalence is probably the least interesting property of any
    > programming language and says absolutely nothing about its

    suitability for
    > real programming tasks.


    Huh???
    This is a paraphrase of what I said. So why did you silently clip the
    remainder of my post where I went on to discuss practical suitability?

    Terry J. Reedy
     
    Terry Reedy, Aug 12, 2003
    #4
  5. "Terry Reedy" <> writes:

    > "Christopher Barber" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    > > "Terry Reedy" <> writes:
    > >
    > > > "Brandon J. Van Every" <> wrote in

    > message
    > > > news:3f357a9b@shknews01...
    > > > > What can I do with Python that I can't do with C#?
    > > >
    > > > Given that all Turing complete languages are theoretically

    > equivalent,
    > > > nothing, either way.

    > >
    > > Turing equivalence is probably the least interesting property of any
    > > programming language and says absolutely nothing about its

    > suitability for
    > > real programming tasks.

    >
    > Huh???
    > This is a paraphrase of what I said. So why did you silently clip the
    > remainder of my post where I went on to discuss practical suitability?


    I quoted you verbatim, there is no paraphrasing here, although I did clip the
    rest of the article. I only meant to express the opinion that there is no
    point in ever bringing up Turing equivalance when comparing languages (unless
    of course they are not Turing equivalent!). Turing equivalence only addresses
    what computations you may perform, not what programs you may write.

    - Christopher
     
    Christopher Barber, Aug 13, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    774
  2. Paul Moore
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    655
    Paul Moore
    Mar 1, 2008
  3. Martin v. Löwis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    692
    Martin v. Löwis
    Mar 1, 2008
  4. Senthil Kumaran
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    602
    Senthil Kumaran
    Jan 17, 2011
  5. R. David Murray
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    797
    R. David Murray
    Jan 17, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page