There's a phrase I never thought I'd see.
Age of release is a meaningless metric, btw. For starters, what Python was in 1991 is very different from what it was in the early 2000s, when it reached critical mass. Its modernity is measurable by the influence it had on most languages designed after its success, like Go and Swift.
That being said I agree that these days the tendency across all languages is to go towards fewer special characters, not more. In this context Perl 6's syntax feels a bit anachronistic.
Maybe you'll be able to win a few new user by telling them that in Perl 6 they can use × for *, Ⅻ for 12 and [unicode atom symbol]++ (ironically HN automatically removes the actual symbol when I submit) for atomic incrementation but I expect that many more will recoil in horror. I won't even talk about »=» and the ascii equivalent >>[=]>>.
This is just a comeback of a recurring dumb trend based on the fallacy that describing the operations of a program using English words is always superior to using appropriate specialized notation. The core of the fallacy is assuming that because something looks like a familiar English word, people who do not understand programming will understand the corresponding semantics of the operation in the programming language, because they know English. Which is complete nonsense - people who do not understand programming will reason by analogy, and through trial and error end up at a partially wrong and misguided understanding of that operation. English words only start you off with unnecessary baggage in the learning process.
It is even worse for people who already know programming. A C for loop is not a JavaScript for loop is not a Python for loop... The details of their semantics are very different, and you will introduce bugs if you just assume "I know how for loops work!"
There is nothing new about this trend either; it was the central premise behind COBOL, and a big motivation for BASIC. What BASIC was in the 1980s, Python is today.
What is ironic about this trend resurfacing today is that it has never been easier to use special characters - Unicode is everywhere, and even making custom keyboards has turned from a major manufacturing endeavor to an accessible hobby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk3A41U0iO4
I feel like a dyslectic when I read Python (projects of significant size) due to it being much less visually helpful and that the idea of simplicity falls apart when the problems are not trivial and when multiple devs have touched the code over multiple years.
YMMV of course but that is why your POV is not objective and I disagree.
You can write bad code in every syntax, but when a language carries jokes about being "write-only" and the other has a reputation for being anal about indentation (the single most helpful scope-marker in any syntax), I don't think you can argue about objectivity when discussing readability.
This said, I'd like to see scientific comparisons, which are lacking. Some studies suggest terse languages using more special characters are more readable to experienced programmers than ones with simpler syntax, which seems to match your experience. That might well be true; but when applied to the real world, this still means than only a minority will ever prefer that style over a simpler one. As the number of coders naturally rises, this will only become more and more true over time.
Also. If you're going to come back to me with the argument that it forces people to use indentation, I've got some news for you. Literally everyone uses indentation. And if you somehow come across code written by the rare soul that doesn't use indentation, all I've to do is select the entire code and click "re-indent". Which, btw, in python is a chore to fix badly indented code with tabs and spaces mixed in together. And it's even more work to properly copy-paste python code, even in good editors.
Yes, if you don’t you’re incompetent. If you do, the markers are then redundant.
Mixed indentation hasn’t been allowed in years.
Any good editor will show mixed indentation, guides, and indent properly with the tab key, get one.
Sounds like your knowledge of Python is about a decade behind. Not to mention those were nonissues from my experience even back in the day.
Ideally, I shouldn't need to use an editor geared specifically for python code to copy-paste some python code and run it. I have had no issues with the majority of other languages when copy-pasting some code and reindenting. Only in python have I had issues with it. Even in elpy-mode in Emacs, I have had issues. Another is Jupyter/IPython, a widely used python IDE for data scientists, where this problem crops up all the time. So lay off with the superior attitude.
I was bothered by the whitespace too, for an hour one afternoon in the spring of ~2001. Then I got over it and realized what a masterstroke it was, removing ~15% of the redundant visual noise.
Firstly, if you cut and paste so often that you feel it should take precedence over everyday readability and conciseness, then that’s a dev smell. Code is read 10x as much as written, likely one reason perl declined.
Secondly, you could simply toggle view whitespace on your editor or have it replace the indent chars on the tab key. Geany does this automatically via pref and it’s Python-specific support is basic.
Thirdly, Python3 and pep8 make issues even less likely than they were. Which is approximately never in my experience in the last ten years or so.
So, this subthread could have been on slashdot in ‘98, hence the frustration.
It’s such a fucking non-issue and productivity boon. Like using yaml for config instead of json.
With that thought in mind, I am pathetically grateful for Python.
> a good programming language should be easily editable from Notepad.
The '90s called, they want their notepad back. Please. Not even Windows users run Notepad, anybody with a minimum of knowledge will use Notepad++. And guess what, N++ has plenty of features to deal with whitespace.
But there are still plenty of cases where you will come across python via a bad interface, such as a shell interface to a server that I haven't set up properly (I come across this a lot since I've a lot of code running in clusters), and new computers or other people's bad setups or computers.
Even when using elpy-mode in Emacs, I've had problems when I tried to tabify and untabify a file (to change indentation length), which completely changed program logic in multiple places, and resulted in subtle bugs that I caught much later.
So you are measuring "modernity" by legacy?
Also, I don't see any Python influence in Go and from the brief exposure I've had to Swift, I'd say there isn't much influence there either.
By your axiom, one could argue that C is a modern language.
Well, in Google's own words[1]: "Go attempts to combine the development speed of working in a dynamic language like Python with the performance and safety of a compiled language like C or C++". Some go datastructures are very python-like. Coming from a big Python shop, it's unsurprising.
Chris Lattner mentions Python[2] as an influence among others. Swift's lists and dicts are very python-like. The way python deals with datastructures is one of its strong points, and it's clearly more modern than anything C-like.
Both Go and Swift are more restrictive than Python in many ways, mostly for performance reasons since they are built for specific needs, but the influence is there and openly admitted.