@ ^, You have got me wrong. We were talking of programming languages and their executional speeds. It was about C, D, Go and likes. Not about Qwertys or Dvoraks.

@pinkyache, it's indeed number crunching. There are almost infinite layouts and to possibly do math among all of them would take a long long time even for supercomputers. C like speed is important here. The difference it's gonna make is huge in the end.

Which are those sites to analyze custom layouts? I found one at codesharp.co.uk/dovrak. Readings of some parameters weren't correct.

Hmmm thanks anyway, patorjk doesn't give a detailed report though.

It can be (just) possible by greatly reducing the possible combinations giving some constraints (you don't expect E to be on pinky right). Still its a tough task ahead, admitted.

thanks pinkyache. i'd gone thru this one before though.

@spremino, I'd gone thru syntaxes of Python, and it seemed more difficult than Vb.net to me. Mind you, I'm used to VB and like the clear written style of VB. I would not, of course, start learning programming with complex D language. Your OCaml looks impressive as well. But still lags behind speed of C and C++ which's gonna make huge difference in the end. D to me looks the most impressive. I would deal with D only later.

And thanks for the appreciation on layout.

questions = [questions for sections in surveys.surveysections_set.all() for questions in sections.surveyquestions_set.all() if questions.question.type == Question.FREE_TEXT]
timestamp = time.mktime((datetime.datetime.now() + datetime.timedelta(hours=1)).timetuple()).split('.')[0]

Clarity? I beg to differ. For simple code, probably, but not when you use Python to it's full power.

I would highly recommend the Ruby for people starting out with programming. It would also be my language of choice as a general purpose language and for web development.

Unfortunately Ruby is not well suited for CPU crunching tasks, that's why I suggested D for that task.

spermino, I personally find Ruby to be the least quirky language I've worked with.

I think Python made some usability and elegance sacrifices in order to achieve better performance. Because Ruby didn't make these sacrifices I think it's a more elegant, consistent, and easy to learn language.

e.g. immutable objects in Python to be very unintuitive. I don't think that a high level language should make things more complicated than C, e.g. changing "Hello world" to "Hello World"

Python: x = "Hello world"; x = x[:6] + x[6].upper() + x[7:]
Ruby: x = "Hello world"; x[6].upcase!

Python has some unexpected syntax surprises, e.g.:

x = (2,2)  # => x is a tuple
x = (2) # => x is a integer (you need a trailing comma)

In Python, you have to think whether things are mutable or immutable, whether they are a proper object or a built-in type, etc.

In Ruby everything is an object, it makes everything easier, a lot more consistent and logical, and explorable and chainable. e.g.:
e.g. you can type:

5.methods.sort.reverse.grep(/to_/).join(', ')

And it will give you all the methods available on the number 5 (which is an object), alphabetically sorted backwards, that contain "to_" in them, joined by commas.

In Python, built-in types aren't proper objects for performance reasons.

Both languages have ample documentation, and a thriving community and ecosystem.

Python is a fine language and has better performance, and would be my second choice I'd recommend for a beginner.

Something i got from a forum:

1) let's say it's object oriented programmming. Then I suggest a "pure" OO language. that excludes C, D, Ocaml, Common Lisp, Fortran, Cobol, but includes languages like Ruby, Smalltalk, Self, Beta, Io

2) let's say it's to understand how machines work. Than the first choice is Assembler, probably C, C++ or D next

3) let us assume you are looking for languages with largest set of libraries. Then C#, the .NET languages, Java, and maybe Smalltalk would be a good idea

4) if you like to learn functional programming. You have to choose languages like Haskell, Ocaml, ML, Qi, maybe Scheme

5) if you like "practical languages" then you might like to check out Common Lisp, Scheme, the diverse .NET languages Ocaml

6) if you want speed than you probablly want to learn Assembler, C, C++, or OCAML

7) if you like languages which cover more "approaches" then you like to learn Scheme, Common Lisp, Ocaml, Mozart/Oz

8) if you want to formulate your goals and let the machine find it's way to it then you like to learn Prolog

9) if you like concise languages than Forth, and derivates will come in handy.

10) if you like to do much text manipulation you like to learn something like Perl, Tcl/Tk, Ruby, Python the so called scripting languages mainly

11) if you like to have your language on as many OSes as possible then, C, Smalltalk, Java and many scripting languages

12) if you want good tools support than the .NET langauges, Java, Smalltalk and the IDES of some Commmon Lisps will be good choices

This advice is obsolete.

Few things I've come across internet after few days of extensive reading. I'm a novice and anything I say here from my very limited understanding of the concept of programming language doesn't hold water. I would like to hear from you people what you think of these:

1. VB.net doesn't support functional programming. I dunno how crucial that's gonna be.

2. I've repeatedly read in various forums people saying "Python is simpler to write but Ruby is simpler to use". I dunno what really this means..

3. @Shai, I too find Ruby to be simpler than Python (accordingly a lot slower too). That's the first hand information I could infer.

4. @ Spremino, I now after reading a lot on languages and going through syntaxes of various languages, I realise syntax doesn't have any real importance. Of course, its the easiness of implementing our ideas concisely what really mattes the most.

5. Going through a lot of languages recommended in various forums, I found a slew of them to be very easy. And accordingly confusing as to choose with which to start :). Apart from Python, Ruby, VB.net and others being talked about here, Smalltalk, Io, Ada, Haskell, Scheme, Common lisp, Object Pascal on Delphi, Ocaml, Rebol, Lua, Oz, Euphoria etc seems to be more or less equally and very much easy. Of the lot, .net, Ruby, Io, Smalltalk, Object Pascal and Lua seems particularly easy to me.

6. @spremino, you feel Scheme is really easy. Personally I don't like the bracketed style syntax of Scheme (something which is silly), but most importantly the prefix style syntax of the Lisp languages is what I really don't find attractive about them. Infix style is a bit more pleasing on eyes and less confusing. I would say Common Lisp is a teeny bit easier than scheme as well. Haskell is one another functional language which has a very concise manner of presentation than Scheme, but sometimes syntaxes are more complex (noticeably with string functions).

7. Object Pascal(Delphi) is the easiest programming out there which I feel is not even a subjective thing :) I've found languages getting complex when object oriented principles are implemented, but Object Pascal handles them remarkably well as far as ease is concerned. I would like to see comments on this :)

8. It's amazing to see Smalltalk developed 30 yrs back is way simple. I love it personally. Will see if I can master it in future.

9. @Spremino, your Ocaml is really interesting. This high level language has the perfect mix of speed and ease of use, I feel. I didn't find it to be as easy as many languages I mentioned here, say for instance vis-a-vis a comparable language, Common Lisp, but the speed is compelling. Ocaml would be in my secondary choice of learning a new language if I've the time and luxury to.

10. I would like to know which are the languages (or their implementations) that have default gui widgets like we have in VB and VB.net? I think Rebol and some implementation of Smalltalk has gui toolkit by default (or am I wrong?), but how do these fare against as that in VB? I ask because I have personally seen only VB.

Very crucial.  Languages which lack support for functional programming force you to write a lot of boiler-plate code for certain kinds of problems.

Neither I do.  Maybe it means that Ruby is flexible enough to let you express ideas in seemingly intuitive ways.  I don't share this opinion: I think Ruby flexibility allows you to express your ideas using the wrong language construct.  As someone has stated - not relating to Ruby - novice programmers use a language's constructs for what such constructs do instead of for what they *mean*.  That's the reason - as I have already stated - I find Ruby code difficult to read.

Python, OTOH, is more of a framework about designing programs, thus you are less likely to acquire bad programming practices.

It has.  Lisp's little syntax - or lack thereof - is what enables the code-as-data paradigm.  Moreover, syntax-heavy languages can be harder to read to those who don't practice them daily.
 

It's just a matter of familiarity.  My experience has been that after a few days programming in Lisp, reading an Algol-derived language (Java, C, etc.) is fatiguing.

Wrong.  All languages have mostly prefix-style syntax, apart from arithmetic operators.  Moreover, it has been shown that Lisp code has less punctuation characters than Java, for instance.

And, would you like to know something?  The designer of Lisp was going to give Lisp infix-style syntax (called M-expressions), but it ended up that programmers preferred the prefix-style one (called S-expressions), because they understood the power such syntax unleashed, and didn't want to give it up.

Unlikely.  Common Lisp has a lot of baggage, and it is hairy, has a language for real world

You forget the monad madness and static typing.  Do not compare code written by the masters with code a beginner can write (and handle).

I have been programming Object Pascal (Delphi) in a commercial setting for three years.  When you are starting out, it seems very nice.  However, as your skills progress, you hit a wall.

If you are after pure object-oriented programming, I would say choose:
- Smalltalk: if you prefer dynamic typing (I do);
- Eiffel: if you prefer static typing (Eiffel is worth learning anyway because of Design by Contract).

Everything else simply is not comparable, no matter how fashionable.

Nawfal, please understand that as an experienced programmer, I have a much broader view than a beginner about what the easiness of learning of a language is.  When you are just looking at syntax, my advice about Python came after I considered: stability, portability, baggage, community, available libraries, wide choice of user-friendly and feature-rich IDEs,

This layout looks like one of the better ones I've seen and you seem to have really done your research, but I don't think it's as good as Colemak or the MTGAP-series. The TH digraph is a unique solution and it has its advantages but I don't think it's very elegant. Touch typing works a certain way; why should you deviate from that just for this one digraph? I'd rather use a keyboard that keeps things simple.

The TH digraph makes this layout difficult to analyze by computer, so I'll do what I can by hand.

* You do a reasonably good job of keeping same finger usage to a minimum.
* The Z underneath E seems like a waste of a position that, while not especially easy to type, still deserves something more common. I would probably want to switch the K and the Z, except that the KE/EK digraphs will increase same finger.
*

This is a fairly minor point. Most keyboards are almost exactly as good on either. The biggest difference is probably the QWERTY 'b' key, which is a lot easier to reach on a good ergonomic keyboard than on standard. I designed MTGAP 2.0 (and most of the other versions) for standard keyboard but they are nearly as good on an ergonomic keyboard.

I'd like to hear your explanation for the bolded part.

I'm glad to see another smart keyboard designer and I hope you come up with some good ideas.