What is the best programming languaging for EEs and BMEs

[member]

<p>First of all nearly everything that you have typed is false.</p>

<p>

• He’s laughing because the notion of writing an OS in Python is almost preposterous. Reasonable people know that.

There is absolutely no reason why you could not write a kernel in python, or any other language for that matter. Any competent person who understands how a computer works would know that. </p>

<p>

• That’s a cop out and you know it. That’s just saying that when speed is a factor, use C. That’s what I said. The fact that you can call C from Python doesn’t make Python as fast as C.

How is it a cop out, its the truth. It is how Python is designed and implemented. You don’t call C from Python, Python is C at a higher level. </p>

<p>

• C++ is an OO version of C. Python is a multiparadigm programming language with C-like (to varying degrees, and not so much, really) syntax.

First of all, C++ is not a OO version of C, as C++ is not a OO language. Pythons syntax is nothing like C, python itself is written in C(or java your choice) as is its system library. A python int is a C int, a python array is a C array, etc. </p>

<p>

• Granted, but it need not be so. Accident, not essence.

It doesn’t need to be so, but if we use the standard python, then yes it is all C. Otherwise we choose java. But we are not talking about Jpython.</p>

<p>

• It’s concise, but that doesn’t make it clean and it doesn’t make it readable, in my opinion.

Do you know the definition of concise?, you contradicted yourself here. Here it is
----expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope;</p>

<p>

• No, but dynamic typing and ‘on the fly’ variable declaration is very common in scripting languages and not so much in programming languages. Reasonable people accept this as true.

</p>

<p>Well alot of programming languages do this including Python, Lisp, Scheme, SmallTalk, Ruby.</p>

<p>

• It is not an imperative language, true. That doesn’t mean it has weak syntax or is less than beautiful.

</p>

<p>Its your opinion which if fine, but you are in the minority. </p>

<p>

• I apologize if you got this from what I wrote. I know that Prolog is not a statically typed language with forced type declarations. I see this as a shortcoming of Prolog. I would much prefer a Prolog with static types. It seems like such a thing should be possible.

</p>

<p>How can it be possible when prolog doesn’t even have types?</p>

<p>

• I know all of this. It makes you look like you’re trying to insult to assume anyone who talks about it doesn’t know. It’s so trivial it’s almost embarrassing you’re making such a big deal out of it.</p>

<p>“The thing I am most shocked at is you thinking that Lisp or scheme is statically typed.”

</p>

<p>There was no misinterpretation and this I call a real copout on your part. </p>

<p>

“Great”? You’re being facetious now.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well I thought anybody would know only kernels can be written in C? To write a Kernel in Python would be drastically easier than in Prolog. </p>

<p>You seem like one of these people, that even when wrong you will just keep coming back. Im not trying to be a *******, its just you were wrong. Im not going to check or reply back to this thread, ive said enough.</p>