@FA
[Cherry picking] could be said about any example.
Exactly, which is why the onus is on you (not Clive or anyone else) to give that "rational argumentation" in favor of Python. The field of computer science is flush with languages that provide little more than syntactic differences. There are very few that offer deep semantic structures that truly allow us to effectively approach problems differently. If, for example, Python offered a way to more easily use the multi-core architectures at the heart of modern hardware, you might have a selling point. By not taking that sort of approach, you're simply not thinking scientifically about the issue.
Please show me an alternative scripting language which offers such tools and allows you to easily combine them.
I've already mentioned two (Perl and R). I mean, if memory serves, two decades ago Perl was the first language I heard of that offered a module to interface with a (simulated) quantum computer. Again, pretty much all languages do what you want, so I could create a very long list for you. The better approach is to look at a problem and ask "Why is Python (or Java or whatever) the best choice to implement the solution?" You've said nothing about your pet libraries that indicate they could not have just as easily been provided in another language. In my experience, 9 times out of 10 a language is chosen simply because it is the lone hammer in an inexperienced developer's toolbox.
As you should have known from the context, this referred to Py3 vs Py2, not to Python vs all the others.
It's all subsumed by the "reimplementation" issue. If someone has a working solution, anything you do that breaks it and forces them to re-do the work is not going to be eagerly adopted. Just because someone did something in Python 2 (whether it was 10 years ago or just yesterday) doesn't mean they're just itching to put in the effort to get it working in Python 3. To many, you're just acting like the "stop liking what I don't like" meme. Take a step back and see the bigger picture if you actually want to help make things better.
Anyway this is going way off-topic.
Not at all. It has direct application to the security field and highlights overall organizational momentum. Like I said, it's sheer naivety for people to act shocked when, say, a company gets hacked and we discover their accounts all still use MD5 has their underlying password hash. The fact is that there are many companies I've gone into wearing my normal Technology Consultant hat and seen things that would be critical issues if I were wearing my Security Consultant hat or even my general Business Analyst hat. But without authority to fix all the problems I see, all I can do is mention them as extraneous issues and focus on the job I was hired to do. Point being, a holistic approach means trying hard to see if something is related to the issue at hand before declaring it not.
3b9f39f38aafc662f11f9d727f7821b492a631d9e97c155442acc3a2bb7402e1