At the risk of releasing more heat than light (so if you feel compelled to flame by this message, please reply just to me or to COFF, not to TUHS): The fussing here over Python reminds me very much of Unix in the 1980s. Specifically wars over editors, and over BSD vs System V vs Research systems, and over classic vs ISO C, and over embracing vendor-specific features (CSRG and USG counting as vendors as well as Digital, SGI, Sun, et al) vs sticking to the common core. And more generally whether any of the fussing is worth it, and whether adding stuff to Unix is progress or just pointless complication. Speaking as an old fart who no longer gets excited about this stuff except where it directly intersects something I want to do, I have concluded that nobody is entirely right and nobody is entirely wrong. Fancy new features that are there just to be fancy are usually a bad idea, especially when they just copy something from one system to a completely different one, but sometimes they actually add something. Sometimes something brand new is a useful addition, especially when its supplier takes the time and thought to fit cleanly into the existing ecosystem, but sometimes it turns out to be a dead end. Personal taste counts, but never as much as those of us brandishing it like to think. To take Python as an example: I started using it about fifteen years ago, mostly out of curiousity. It grew on me, and these days I use it a lot. It's the nearest thing to an object- oriented language that I have ever found to be usable (but I never used the original Smalltalk and suspect I'd have liked that too). It's not what I'd use to write an OS, nor to do any sort of performance-limited program, but computers and storage are so fast these days that that rarely matters to me. Using white space to denote blocks took a little getting used to, but only a little; no more than getting used to typing if ...: instead of if (...). The lack of a C-style for loop occasionally bothers me, but iterating over lists and sets handles most of the cases that matter, and is far less cumbersome. It's a higher-level language than C, which means it gets in the way of some things but makes a lot of other things easier. It turns out the latter is more significant than the former for the things I do with it. The claim that Python doesn't have printf (at least since ca. 2.5, when I started using it) is just wrong: print 'pick %d pecks of %s' % (n, fruit) is just a different spelling of printf("pick %d pecks of %s\n", n, fruit) except that sprintf is no longer a special case (and snprintf becomes completely needless). I like the modern print(f'pick {n} pecks of {fruit}') even better; f strings are what pushed me from Python 2 to Python 3. I really like the way modules work in Python, except the dumbass ways you're expected to distribute a program that is broken into modules of its own. As a low-level hacker I came up with my own way to do that (assembling them all into a single Python source file in which each module is placed as a string, evaled and inserted into the module table, and then the starting point called at the end; all using documented, stable interfaces, though they changed from 2 to 3; program actually written as a collection of individual source files, with a tool of my own--written in Python, of course--to create the single file which I can then install where I need it). I have for some years had my own hand-crafted idiosyncratic program for reading mail. (As someone I know once said, everybody writes a mailer; it's simple and easy and makes them feel important. But in this case I was doing it just for myself and for the fun of it.) The first edition was written 20 years ago in C. I rewrote it about a decade ago in Python. It works fine; can now easily deal with on-disk or IMAP4 or POP3 mailboxes, thanks both to modules as a concept and to convenient library modules to do the hard work; and updating in the several different work and home environments where I use it no longer requires recompiling (and the source code need no longer worry about the quirks of different compilers and libraries); I just copy the single executable source-code file to the different places it needs to run. For me, Python fits into the space between shell scripts and awk on one hand, and C on the other, overlapping some of the space of each. But personal taste is relevant too. I didn't know whether I'd like Python until I'd tried it for a few real programs (and even then it took a couple of years before I felt like I'd really figured out out to use it). Just as I recall, about 45 years ago, moving from TECO (in which I had been quite expert) to ed and later the U of T qed and quickly feeling that ed was better in nearly every way; a year or so later, trying vi for a week and giving up in disgust because it just didn't fit my idea of how screen editors should work; falling in love with jim and later sam (though not exclusively, I still use ed/qed daily) because they got the screen part just right even if their command languages weren't quite such a good match for me. And I have never cottoned on to Perl for, I suspect, the same reason I'd be really unhappy to go back to TECO. Tastes evolve. I bet there's a lot of stuff I did in the 1980s that I'd do differently could I have another go at it. The important thing is to try new stuff. I haven't tried Go or Rust yet, and I should. If you haven't given Python or Perl a good look, you should. Sometimes new tools are useless or cumbersome, sometimes they are no better than what you've got now, but sometimes they make things easier. You won't know until you try. Here endeth today's sermon from the messy office, which I ought to be cleaning up, but preaching is more fun. Norman Wilson Toronto ON