It's important to note that Python isn't really only one language.
I've been messing with Python for about 2 years,
now, and I've come to greatly appreciate it. It
can be infinitely easier to read than C,C++, or
especially Perl. It's very impressive how its
object-oriented nature is thorough, but not
intrusive. If you don't want OOP, just ignore the
The indentation is often controversial, but I find
that it forces me to write better code in the long
run. And I can't imagine how indentation that
not only follows the program logic but also defines
it can be a worse thing than spending hours looking
for a single missing ' ; '.
( BTW, the indentation makes for excellent code
'folding' if your editor supports it. I'm not sure,
but I think emacs does. )
But the strongest point of Python, I think, is it's
ability to encapsulate other languages, to 'glue'
heterogenous code together.
Some resources the author didn't mention are
SWIG (http://www.swig.org) and <a
/background.php3">SIP, both of which auto-
magically generate Python objects from C++ or C
code. Also worthy of note is the cousin project
Jython (http://www.jython.org), which implements Python in pure Java,
and through which the programmer can access
both Python and Java objects.
But it's important to note that being involved with
Python has different levels. I, for example, am a
Python coder, not a developer. I
write code in Python, using the excellent tools that
some brave coder has already built for me. Usually
they did that building in C. I know some C, but not
nearly enough to do the kind of things I can do in
Python, using only the built-in libraries.
My hat's off to those who give us such tools, but
the point I feel is important to note is that it's not
all-or-nothing. There are those who write Python,
and there are those who write _in_ Python, and
you can be whichever you like. You don't have to go any deeper than you want, but you can use it to get a lot done quickly, without abandoning your language of choice.
Now that's a power tool.
> It also advocates a
> "misconception" (at least in
> my eyes but I am sure most of you will
> agree) of females in society by
> proclaiming their (women's) permanent
> availabity as things to be posessed or
> objects to be used by men. Ultimately, I
> think that pornography is very likey to
> have a negative impact on those who are
> easy to manipulate. Of course
> pornography does not kill people, it
> does not even _directly_ make people
> rape other people, but it very likely
> adds to an atmosphere that makes
> violence against or offensive behavious
> towards women more probable.
> So in that context I would say that it
> is perfectly right to view pornography
> as something "dirty" or
Wow. In that context, Budweiser is the most evil pimp of all time...
While I agree that the existence of online porn may be a part of "an atmosphere that makes violence against or offensive behavious towards women more probable," I think it's well worth mentioning that that atmosphere exists where it will, and if it's thought unhealthy, then porn can only be called a symptom, not a cause, of the disease.
Does anybody here have any info on the porn business in fundamentalist Islamic countries, where it is legal to set your wife on fire if you _suspect_ her of infidelity? My vague impression is that porn is almost unknown to these areas. I don't know about the statistics, but I'll bet the porn / violence-against-women ratio is a lot worse in such places.
And as to my cryptic characterization of Budweiser, I feel confident in saying that alcohol has been a direct and obvious contributor to more rapes, murders, assaults, wife-beatings, and abuse against both women and children than any other single thing in the world. Yet alcohol is legal, for consenting adults, and the underage can get access to it relatively easily. Exactly the same way as porn. If porn can be said to be contributing to a dangerous atmosphere, then alcohol must be said to be a sociopathic deluge.
Ergo, the likes of Miller, Jack Daniels, Budweiser, Absolut, et al, would have to be considered the most "dirty" and "immoral" filth-mongers of all.
Not that I propose a ban on alcohol. Far from it. Used 'correctly', alcohol can be harmless, and exactly the same is true of porn. The vast majority of those who consume alcohol do so without eventually raping and killing women. It has its legitimate use in society, and only becomes a problem (and here I make a sweeping generalization that I think I can stand by) in the hands of people who already have problems pre-existing.
While I disagree with the NRA about a great many things, I whole-heartedly agree when they say "Guns don't kill people; People do."
I think it's dangerous that we humans generally no longer consider ourselves to be "animals." What a stupid misconception. "People are animals, too!"
Pornography makes a poor scapegoat.