Re: Is python not good enough?
On 1/12/2010 9:09 PM, ikuta liu wrote: I'm a little confused. Is python not good enough? for google, enhance python performance is the good way better then choose build Go language? Go language try to merge low level, hight level and browser language. Those I'd like to see it on python.. Have you not heard about the "Unladen Swallow" project from google? There's a new PEP coming up which will propose google's codebase to be merged with Py3k, resulting in superior performance. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: myths about python 3
On 1/28/2010 2:56 AM, John Nagle wrote: Daniel Fetchinson wrote: 1. Python 3 is supported by major Linux distributions. FALSE - most distros are shipping with Python 2.4, or 2.5 at best. Where did you come up with that information? Almost all of the major distros ship with 2.6.x - CentOS, OpenSuSe, Ubuntu, Fedora. (Debian does ship with 2.5, but the next major release "sid' is due out in Q2) Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market. Instead, there's now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8. Python 3 has turned into a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years old. WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE LAST version of the 2.x series - "the" End-Of-Life for Python 2. At least py3k is a real product - unlike the perl 6 vaporware. That said, I think python 2 will be the dominant player in the market for the next couple of years. However, there's been some momentum behind Py3k recently. Unladen swallow is going to be merged with Py3k (not 2.x for which it was originally developed). I hear the django guys have made huge progress in porting the framework to Py3k (although it will be a good few months before the code is released in the wild) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: myths about python 3
On 1/28/2010 8:44 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: Steve Holden writes: Kindly confine your debate to the facts and keep the snide remarks to yourself. Like it or not Python 3 is the future, and unladen swallow's recent announcement that they would target only Python 3 represented a ground-breaking advance for the language. My take on things is that doing unladen swallow really "right" will require yet more incompatible changes; i.e., the result will either still leave quite a bit of performance on the table, or else it won't be compatible with the current specification of Python 3 and they'll presumably have to call it Python 4. And if Python 4 is as good as I believe it could possibly be, then it might get wide acceptance before Python 3 really has all that much uptake. If I have to accept incompatibility anyway, and Python 4 gives huge improvements while Python 3's improvements are tiny or moderate, why not skip over Python 3? There's a prime example - it's called Windows Vista! ;) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: myths about python 3
On 1/30/2010 11:47 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: Blog wrote: WTF? Where'd you hear about version 2.8? FRI, 2.7 is and will be THE LAST version of the 2.x series - "the" End-Of-Life for Python 2 Where do you get your information from? Your answer is the first that clearly marks the end of lifetime for the 2.x series. I didn't know that and I'm a Python core dev as well as a PSF member ... *scnr* Christian Well, here's what the Python 2.7 alpha 2 (January 9th, 2010) release note says: "Python 2.7 is scheduled to be the last major version in the 2.x series before it moves into 5 years of bugfix-only mode. This release contains many of the features that were first released in Python 3.1..." Ref: http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.7/ Here are some more resources: "Python 2 nears end of life" "Python 2.7, expected to be the last major version of the 2.x series of the dynamic language, was released as a second alpha earlier month by the Python Software Foundation, with the final release set for June. When 2.7 is released, the 2.x line will move into five years of a bug fix-only mode." http://www.computerworlduk.com/technology/development/software/news/index.cfm?newsid=18331 "2.7's the end of the line. There was some discussion around the release of 2.6 as to how far the 2.x series should go, and the conclusion which came out of it was that 2.7 is it. Beyond this, the world is 3.x (which, given the time it takes OS distributors to catch up -- most are still on 2.5 -- is about right with the projected time frame for most projects to port)." http://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/aoloc/python_27_alpha_2_has_been_released/ "Let’s also account for the fact that, as of this writing, Python 2.7 (scheduled for next year) is *intended* to be the End of Life release of the Python 2.x syntax – Python 3 being the next evolutionary step." http://jessenoller.com/2009/12/04/pythons-moratorium-lets-think-about-this/ Of course, this isn't written in stone - there may very well be another version after 2.7. However, at this instant, it does look like 2.7 will be the veritable last version. Best regards. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: myths about python 3
On 1/30/2010 10:06 AM, Ben Finney wrote: Blog writes: (Debian does ship with 2.5, but the next major release "sid' is due out in Q2) Sid is the perpetual development playground (“unstable”), never released as a suite, but a proving ground for packages to determine their fitness for going to the next level of testing. The next-to-be-released suite is Squeeze (currently “testing”), which has Python 2.5 (the default ‘python’) and Python 2.6. Oops! My bad! I actually meant Squeeze. Thanks for catching the "typo". -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Help AES Implemetation
Hi, I have two AES implementation programs: AES-1:http://pastebin.com/TrQ5iaxc AES-2: http://pastebin.com/mXRyprKL I have one binary file which is encrypted with some other AES program and it is getting decrypted with AES-1 but not with AES-2. I have shared both the programs link with you can someone please help me in identifying where exactly AES-2 is wrong in implementation. Regards PyHack -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Mathematica 7 compares to other languages
On Dec 11, 4:53 pm, "William James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William James wrote:
> > John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > > Xah Lee wrote:
> > > > In lisp, python, perl, etc, you'll have 10 or so lines. In C or
> > > > Java, you'll have 50 or hundreds lines.
>
> > > Java:
>
> > > static float[] normal(final float[] x) {
> > > float sum = 0.0f;
> > > for (int i = 0; i < x.length; ++i) sum += x[i] * x[i];
> > > final float divisor = (float) Math.sqrt(sum);
> > > float[] a = new float[x.length];
> > > for (int i = 0; i < x.length; ++i) a[i] = x[i]/divisor;
> > > return a;
> > > }
>
> > "We don't need no stinkin' loops!"
>
> > SpiderMonkey Javascript:
>
> > function normal( ary )
> > { div=Math.sqrt(ary.map(function(x) x*x).reduce(function(a,b) a+b))
> > return ary.map(function(x) x/div)
> > }
>
> The variable "div" shouldn't be global.
>
> function normal( ary )
> { var div = Math.sqrt(
> ary.map(function(x) x*x).reduce(function(a,b) a+b) )
> return ary.map(function(x) x/div)
>
> }
>
>
Chicken Scheme:
(require 'srfi-1)
(define (norm vec)
(map (cute / <> (sqrt (reduce + 0 (map (cute expt <> 2) vec
vec))
Cute huh? ;-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Mathematica 7 compares to other languages
On Dec 11, 7:50 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Dec 11, 4:53 pm, "William James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > William James wrote:
> > > John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > > > Xah Lee wrote:
> > > > > In lisp, python, perl, etc, you'll have 10 or so lines. In C or
> > > > > Java, you'll have 50 or hundreds lines.
>
> > > > Java:
>
> > > > static float[] normal(final float[] x) {
> > > > float sum = 0.0f;
> > > > for (int i = 0; i < x.length; ++i) sum += x[i] * x[i];
> > > > final float divisor = (float) Math.sqrt(sum);
> > > > float[] a = new float[x.length];
> > > > for (int i = 0; i < x.length; ++i) a[i] = x[i]/divisor;
> > > > return a;
> > > > }
>
> > > "We don't need no stinkin' loops!"
>
> > > SpiderMonkey Javascript:
>
> > > function normal( ary )
> > > { div=Math.sqrt(ary.map(function(x) x*x).reduce(function(a,b) a+b))
> > > return ary.map(function(x) x/div)
> > > }
>
> > The variable "div" shouldn't be global.
>
> > function normal( ary )
> > { var div = Math.sqrt(
> > ary.map(function(x) x*x).reduce(function(a,b) a+b) )
> > return ary.map(function(x) x/div)
>
> > }
>
> Chicken Scheme:
>
> (require 'srfi-1)
> (define (norm vec)
> (map (cute / <> (sqrt (reduce + 0 (map (cute expt <> 2) vec
> vec))
>
> Cute huh? ;-)
Haskell looks the best though:
norm v = map (/ (sqrt (sum (map (^2) v v
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Mathematica 7 compares to other languages
On Dec 12, 12:12 am, Xah Lee wrote: > On Dec 11, 6:50 am, the.brown.dragon.b...@gmail.com wrote: > ;; Chicken Scheme. By the.brown.dragon...@gmail.com > (require 'srfi-1) > (define (normalize vec) > (map (cute / <> (sqrt (reduce + 0 (map (cute expt <> 2) vec > vec)) > > Is it possible to make it work in scsh? (i'm running scsh 0.6.4, and > don't know Scheme lisp well) > > Xah > ∑http://xahlee.org/ > > ☄ I don't have scsh but yes - it should work fine. "cute" is an SRFI (http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-26/) which should be available. cheers, BD -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
