[cutler]

Unfortunately. Ruby should have been Perl's natural successor. Python is the VHS of scripting languages. For a start it doesn't have a decent answer to Perl or Ruby's one-liners. Then there's the crippled lambda implementation. Python is a sad case of worse is better.

[tharne]

> For a start it doesn't have a decent answer to Perl or Ruby's one-liners.

This is by design. Readability is core to the design and philosophy of python. One liners are cool and fun to write, but trying to decipher someone else's incredibly dense bash or perl one-liner is absolutely awful.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> One liners are cool and fun to write, but trying to decipher someone else's incredibly dense bash or perl one-liner is absolutely awful.

You can write hard-to-read code in any programming language.

Python lets you with mandatory whitespace so that the awfulness spans multiple lines instead.

Really talented Python programmers can do downright demonic stuff with list comprehensions.

Python appears to be simple, but is actually quite complex. I recommend reading "Effective Python" (https://effectivepython.com/) to see beneath the surface.

[cutler]

The readability complaint usually comes from people who never took the time to grok the language and its idioms. At least give the user the option. Advocating a language based on what it denies you doesn't make sense. Why use a scriptig language at all if belt and braces is what you're looking for?

[2colours]

This topic is akin to "holy wars" and since I used to think the same way (still do to some extent), I would like you to at least consider another aspect: the effort it takes to "grok the language and its idioms" is vastly different depending on the design of the language. Letting people do whatever they want, whatever way they want it isn't only about protecting them from themselves or not.

Just think of C: I'd argue its design is actually more akin to Python than Perl (and it definitely inspired languages like Go and Zig, NOT languages like C++). It's a small language and this is a very important characteristic of it: you can count on being able to actually master it or at least very well comprehend it. Other effects of a simple and literally straightforward language can be: easier implementation and evolvement, less mental load on the developer, easier portability among developers (both for general knowledge and actual code), etc. I'm not saying that C is the way it is for all these reasons but I wouldn't overlook this factor and I do think that languages like Python are deliberately building on these advantages.

Now, I don't dislike C++ at all but back when I studied it at university, I noticed that it was the first language for me that needed to be actually studied, unlike Pascal, C, Python and "oldschool" JS. Ever since, the only languages where I felt the same were Prolog (mostly because it requires a different mindset; other than that, it didn't seem bloated) and Raku. Not C#, not Java, not Erlang. I didn't really have to touch Perl but from all I know, Raku started off as a fresh take on the Perl approach. It seems somewhat more organized but huge nevertheless, to the extent that there literally isn't one person who really "groks the language" all around. In the case of Raku, I wouldn't even say it encourages you to write unreadable code (especially if you have a thing for APL look-alikes, lol) - it's just so rich that there is a good chance you will come across something in someone else's code you have never used before and don't quite remember how it will act in your specific use case.

There are different types of freedom than "do whatever you want". Like, the freedom to feel safe and confident about code. These days, humanity has aggregated an immense amount of knowledge and technology and "I will do it all by myself" is not that much of an option. And even people with such puritanistic tendencies will choose simple and straightforward tools, even if not for the "limitations".

[cutler]

There have always been feature-rich and bare-bones languages. No point pitting one against the other. I don't consider myself particularly clever but with the help of "Programming Perl" and "Learning Perl" I managed to get a pretty good grasp of the language with no prior programming experience. I just feel a lot of the knee-jerk response to the mention of Perl comes from people who have never put any effort into learning it.

[2colours]

Well I'm saying that "you just didn't bother to learn it, duh" is not an equally valid argument for different languages; it's much less valid for Perl than it would be for Python. It rewards your efforts much less. Perl is notoriously a language that had desperate criticism among its users even by the mid 90's ($[ and $] stuff comes to mind), quickly led to the creation of Ruby and famously "forked itself" with what is now known as Raku.

Now I have barely spent any time with the oldschool Perl but trust me, I have put a lot of effort into learning Raku, the language that was meant to fix Perl. Whenever something that "seemed like a good idea at first but it's actually harmful" shows up, it's usually Perl's legacy. I'm thinking of things like the conceptual mishmash between a single-element list and a scalar value (or in general, trying hard to break down variables arbitrarily into list-alikes, hash-alikes and the rest of the world), the concept of values that try to implicitly pretend they are strings and numbers at will, or the transparency of all subroutines to loop control statements which is some next level spaghetti design. If you ever actually use something like this, you introduce a brand new level of complexity, somewhere inbetween a "goto" and a "comefrom", so I would really think about if this was worth learning at all.

Oh right... from what I remember, it was also Perl that fostered this idiotic idea that a name of a concrete thing could be overloaded to be a namespace as well, and a concrete Foo::Bar could very well be something that has no logical relation to a concrete Foo. Moreover, I'm quite sure Perl invented this nonsensical distribution-module dichotomy where you are supposed to depend on modules, despite the smallest publishable and installable unit being a distribution. There are three outcomes with that: - if the distribution contains only one module: what was the point of drawing the distinction? - if the distribution contains tightly coupled modules: you can pretend to only depend on one of the modules but in fact you are depending on the whole distribution together - if the distribution is a collection of unrelated modules: why are you trying to encouple the metadata when this will make the versioning meaningless?

I can only hope that it's somehow better than Raku but the whole principle is just an anomaly.

And you know, then these people move around in the world, pretending that all of this is just normal and you just have to learn it. Well guess what, there is a reason people might want to put that effort into something else.