I notice you smart CS types speak of toys. Toy compilers, toy languages. Is there some consensus as to what it means? At what point is something in programming *not* a toy?
Name:
Anonymous2010-06-13 23:34
>>19
You're implying that every language gets born a ``toy''. And thus even Godly C would have been a mere ``toy'' at some time.
No language or tool became universally adopted overnight. I'd rather define a toy language as one that is just too stupid, utterly inefficient/bloated or attempts to serve too many masters, no matter how widespread it is. Of course this definition was especially made to have Python match it.