Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

Re:Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python by herdrick on Wednesday March 25, 2009 @05:56PM (#532500)

No, they aren't very good. I think the problem is cultural. Programming Java gets you comfortable with extreme verbosity and tons of structure so its libraries end up like this: http://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/apidocs/org/apache/xmlrpc/server... (In extreme cases.)

Lucene was mentioned earlier - it, at least, is very good.

I have the same impression about the numerical computation and machine learning libs too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python by time_management on Thursday March 26, 2009 @11:28PM (#534630)

There's a lot of "enterprise" crap in the Java libraries: extreme verbosity is the most notable problem. Object-orientation is also just the wrong metaphor for many problems. Finally, camelCaps are uglyAsFuckAndNotVeryReadable.

However, the JVM libraries are well-supported and generally can be trusted to work. For a lot of the wheels I'd rather not reimplement, they're quite useful. I don't think that the Clojure of 2020 will be as reliant on Java, but for now, the JVM libraries are very useful.

[ Parent | on HN ]