26

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> As it is known, in the bad languages to write much more difficult. But why that the bad languages win love of audience.   $config = {} foreach ($line in ((gc ' file ') | % {$ _.Trim ()} |? {-not ([string]:: IsNullOrEmpty ($ _)-or $ _.StartsWith (' # '))})) {$name, $value = $line. Split (' = ') | % {$ _.Trim ()} $config [$name] = $value..... Strict, a typed language using System; using System. Linq; using System. IO; using System. Collections. Generic; class A {static void Main () {File.ReadAllText (' file ').Select (_ => _.Trim ()).Where (_ =>! (string. IsNullOrEmpty (_) || _.StartsWith ("#")))........ At other equal I will prefer . Because of more short and . S> In what the reason? Here it in any way I can not understand. You, probably, on one  sit? Probably, therefore. S> to Take the same JS, PHP or Python even. Well JS that is clear, though and here stars of mankind which install Web-standards, could arrive on mind. Well? Continue thought - and in a percussion cap  to all that is from the C/C world ++ S> Here the logic of this world and all here is not clear to me. To themselves cactuses invent. Time - money. Here logic of this world.

27

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Wolverrum, you wrote: S>> to me the logic of this world and all here Here is not clear. To themselves cactuses invent. W> time - money. Here logic of this world. I as the programmer 1 will answer that on C# to write and debug faster for the account . That less when does not mean that it is written .

28

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, msorc, you wrote: M> Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S>> to Take the same JS, PHP or Python even. M> Well give we take last PHP and Python. In what on yours consists them ? Therefore as they are capable to surprise unpleasantly: php for ($i ='a '; $i <= ' z '; ++ $i) echo "$i"; a b c... yy yz $x=true? 1: true? 2: true? 3: 4; $x=3 python class A: x=1 class B (A): pass class a C (A): pass print A.x, B.x, C.x B.x=2 print A.x, B.x, C.x A.x=3 print A.x, B.x, C.x 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 js https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pL28CcEijU&t=271

29

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _> _> B.x=2 _> print A.x, B.x, C.x _> I so think that this expected behavior for language. When you do such assignment, it defines "a class variable" on the given class, without touching the remaining. Therefore for With it will take from And, and for B there will be a variable. If it differs what someone got used  in the language why it will be mandatory "" in Python? About JS was laziness to look, c  - it is cool. Than explain? Any singularities of operation with lines/reguljarkami?

30

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> As it is known, in the bad languages to write much more difficult. But why that the bad languages win love of audience. Complexity happens different, short-term and long-term. Good languages less long-term expenses, and at bad have less short-term. Fast to make hastily a prototype, a code minimum!!! 111 (then truth it is necessary to pay off, but at the majority of people brains do not think "and that will be then"). On the same subject - "why fans to thump beer with chips on a sofa it is a lot of, and those who goes in for sports at least on a minimum - a little".

31

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Serginio1, you wrote: S> Hello, Wolverrum, you wrote: S>>> to me the logic of this world and all here Here is not clear. To themselves cactuses invent. W>> time - money. Here logic of this world. S> I as the programmer 1 will answer that on C# to write and debug faster for the account . S> that less when does not mean that it is written . Instead of 1 try odoo on a python. It is written quickly (for the account odoo) and it is convenient (for the account python)

32

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> As it is known, in the bad languages to write much more difficult. But why that the bad languages win love of audience. S> in what the reason? Here it in any way I can not understand. And who told that these languages are popular? For example to take a web sites, yes each cook has a page on the Internet and on each page a heap , occasionally  robot JS, counters, , buttons. I.e. for the analyzer there is a sensation that who developed it, actually the majority of decisions in these languages  is simply copied and repeatedly used, with minimum .

33

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, okon, you wrote: S>> As it is known, in the bad languages to write much more difficult. But why that the bad languages win love of audience. S>> in what the reason? Here it in any way I can not understand. O> and who told that these languages are popular? https://insights.stackoverflow.com/surv … technology

34

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Wolverrum, you wrote: W> At other equal I will prefer . Because of more short and . What is ?

35

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Shmj, you wrote: S> As it is known, in the bad languages to write much more difficult. But why that the bad languages win love of audience. S> in what the reason? Here it in any way I can not understand. S> to take the same JS, PHP or Python even. Well JS that is clear, though and here stars of mankind which install Web-standards, could arrive on mind. S> to me the logic of this world and all here here is not clear. To themselves cactuses invent. 1. An input threshold." Good "languages, suitable for writing of the big programs, have high enough threshold of an input that does not allow beginners to use them. And the majority of programmers - beginners or militant laymans. 2. Development cost. The qualitative, steady and clear code is not given simply so, on it it is necessary to waste time. Therefore development on  languages faster, than on the typified. It is attractive to businessmen since in business speed of a product yield on the market is very important - the earlier start sales, the there will be money for product development earlier.

36

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, the Corkcrew, you wrote: Instead of 1 try odoo on a python. It is written quickly (for the account odoo) and it is convenient (for the account python) And still in odoo it is necessary to put units in strictly defined, but the unknown order. Otherwise this odoo % - without the warning, and it is more on it than anything it will not be possible to deliver. In general, slag yours Odoo, in girlhood OpenERP.

37

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Wolverrum, you wrote: W> Skriptovyj  Kr-rrrrrr-chpok! Hhhark-ptfu-vualja! W> Strict, a typed language Language, clear> At other equal I will prefer to people W . Because of more short and . One pleases that the pearl dies together with its gray-haired adherents.

38

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, the Corkcrew, you wrote: S>> I as the programmer 1 will answer that on C# to write and debug faster for the account . S>> that less when does not mean that it is written . Instead of 1 try odoo on a python. It is written quickly (for the account odoo) and it is convenient (for the account python) Here When 1 will be on "odoo on a python" then it is possible and to try. And so personally TypeScript very much it is pleasant to me.

39

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Serginio1, you wrote: S> I as the programmer 1 do not flatter itself))) avalon/2.0.3

40

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, DenisCh, you wrote: DC> Hello, Serginio1, you wrote: S>> I as the programmer 1 DC> do not flatter itself))) That is 1  not the programmer? You it is simple to them did not grow!

41

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Glory, you wrote: Hello, Wolverrum, you wrote: W>> Strict, a typed language Language, clear to people On the basis of what is drawn such output? Than we admit cs more clearly Python? Yes here at least  languages do without explicit get/set methods and it is possible to write to attributes directly. To people it is more clear Well and everyones there BaseFactoryCustomerAccountStrategyFactoryGeneratorResultExceptionPresenterFacade do not come across W>> At other equal I will prefer . Because of more short and . One pleases that the pearl dies together with its gray-haired adherents. Perl6 it is very good. Incidentally I run to esteem and .

42

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Glory, you wrote: And still in odoo it is necessary to put units in strictly defined, but the unknown order. Otherwise this odoo % - without the warning, and it is more on it than anything it will not be possible to deliver. From what you such took, there is no such. Dependences on other units register in the unit, all is installed as it is necessary. Any left (unsolved) unit any you can delivered in general, slag yours Odoo, in girlhood OpenERP. In my opinion, it is far not slag. A level product 1:, only with possibility of pointwise finishing (units), in normal language, with normal IDE

43

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, neFormal, you wrote: S>> there would be no strict typification F> to you to learn that there is, and that is not present. F> and that to be praised by illiteracy - unhealthy line. Concept of "strict" typification blurred, accurate determination if I correctly understand, no. Here you what exactly name strict typification, is applicable to Pitone/JS?  the compiler and illumination in IDE? Or there is something "more feasibly"?

44

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, msorc, you wrote: M> Well give we take last PHP and Python. In what on yours consists them ? I will not undertake to specify in a specific problem if to name finite not problem a dynamic essence most Python. But here something I did not see till now examples where it "correctly prepare". For simple scripts (within several hundreds code lines) - all is fine. And here when over the project start to work more than two-three persons, a rake begins. I worked in different large offices. In several places the Python for auxiliary tasks of type of tests was used and I yet did not see, that development on the Python transited so smoothly, as for statically-typed languages. Here now at us integration tests on the Python are written. All is perfectly structured and object-oriented, with the thought over inheritance hierarchy and good  the code. It is direct "!" . Here it is fair. But it thus continually breaks from fresh . In 9 cases from 10 when I see fallen , I do not need to look at a specific error in a broad gull - simply I restart verification and it is normal from the second time transits. And it even +4 hours of waiting of result. Because, unlike Java, at   any special checks the compiler does not do the code. Each change, in itself, looks correctly and the programmer who wrote the code, probably looked, whether is not present  and even (it would be desirable to trust) launched the code before sending on the code-revju. But somewhere after merge of changes from several persons all time something breaks. Also happens so on some times in the course of the day. Plus, all is strongly aggravated with usage of web services - if the REST-inquiry parameter while the appropriate test will not be launched somewhere exchanged, anybody at all does not learn, whence it there is still caused. And errors each time - any unreadable barn from a heap "a wrong call __ init __" or still something suggesting despondency. Not, I, of course, agree - the passing on those messages and review last  allows to find an error in some minutes, but by this moment is already lost N hours of waiting of results . The ten persons launched verification , waited 3. 5 hours to see the error report in  which would be found at once in any language with static typification. And change API for languages with static typification too is much less painful -  proxy classes and we see, where the compiler told about mismatch of parameters. And for the Python - we restart, we wait for 5 hours and we rake broad gulls. Someone once, many years ago, decided to write at us integration tests on the Python. And now anybody will not rewrite any more ten and hundred thousand code lines on the Python. It is necessary to suffer. At that, special pluses from such choice already also it is not visible. When code amount small the Python seems easier choice in respect of modifications. When it crosses rather small threshold of complexity, complexity of support of such code, in my opinion, where above.

45

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Serginio1, you wrote: S> Here When 1 will be on "odoo on a python" then it is possible and to try. And this an ode is able more than one  ? She is able from a box of a web client and the mobile client? And that on  it is not clear.... avalon/2.0.3

46

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Serginio1, you wrote: S> S>> I as the programmer 1 S> DC> do not flatter itself))) S> That is 1  not the programmer? No. It above it avalon/2.0.3

47

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Artem Korneev, you wrote: AK> Concept of "strict" typification blurred, accurate determination if I correctly understand, no. Here you what exactly name strict typification, is applicable to Pitone/JS?  the compiler and illumination in IDE? Or there is something "more feasibly"? Often use "strict" as a synonym of "strong". I just about it am the strong typification is.

48

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, kov_serg, you wrote: _> Therefore as they are capable to surprise unpleasantly: it as C# to abuse that in a link is not present map/reduce, and any select/where

49

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Artem Korneev, you wrote: S>>> there would be no strict typification F>> to you to learn that there is, and that is not present. F>> and that to be praised by illiteracy - unhealthy line. AK> concept of "strict" typification blurred, accurate determination if I correctly understand, no. Here you what exactly name strict typification, is applicable to Pitone/JS?  the compiler and illumination in IDE? Or there is something "more feasibly"? There is quite a uniquely identifying strict (it strong) typifications. You I hope you do not confuse this concept to dynamic/static typification?))) P.S. And illumination in IDE at all has no relation to language singularities.

50

Re: Than to explain popularity ?

Hello, Artem Korneev, you wrote: AK> Because, unlike Java, at   any special checks the compiler does not do the code. Each change, in itself, looks correctly and the programmer who wrote the code, probably looked, whether is not present  and even (it would be desirable to trust) launched the code before sending on the code-revju. But somewhere after merge of changes from several persons all time something breaks. Also happens so on some times in the course of the day. Plus, all is strongly aggravated with usage of web services - if the REST-inquiry parameter while the appropriate test will not be launched somewhere exchanged, anybody at all does not learn, whence it there is still caused. And errors each time - any unreadable barn from a heap "a wrong call __ init __" or still something suggesting despondency. Why the author himself does not launch the tests if he writes them?