Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:43:34 +0100, Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >samantha wrote: > >> What are you? A pointy haired boss? > >What are you? A 12 year old that has just learned to use Google >Groups? 8) Says a person with a 13-line sig. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >> the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is impossible >> in other languages. > >Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about >computer science? Here, you've basically shot yourself in the ass. Appealing to Turing completeness when talking about programming language features is about the dumbest thing you can make. In Turing sense, a program is simply a function that takes an argument and returns a value. It doesn't say anything about how this function was implemented. It could be Turing machine, lambda calculus, Markov chains or whatever else. All these methods produce the same set of programs, but that doesn't mean you could implement lambda in Turing machine for example. Is is time for someone to read his computer science books again? -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:24:43 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +, Timofei Shatrov wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this >> message: >> >>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: >>> >>>> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >>>> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >>>> the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is impossible >>>> in other languages. >>> >>>Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about >>>computer science? >> >> Here, you've basically shot yourself in the ass. Appealing to Turing >> completeness when talking about programming language features is about the >> dumbest thing you can make. In Turing sense, a program is simply a function >> that >> takes an argument and returns a value. It doesn't say anything about how this >> function was implemented. It could be Turing machine, lambda calculus, Markov >> chains or whatever else. All these methods produce the same set of programs, >> but >> that doesn't mean you could implement lambda in Turing machine for example. > >What exactly are you trying to say here? Is this a comment about the >relative practicality of writing code in a Turing machine versus >high-level languages, or are you implying that lambda calculus is "bigger" >than any Turing-complete language? > I'm trying to say that the ability to read is a very useful skill in a Usenet discussion. Your posts, like the two quoted above, seem to indicate the lack of it. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
On 11 Dec 2006 00:27:28 -0800, "Ravi Teja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: > >That's a lot of hate in 2 sentences for judging a novel feature you >barely came across. > But, you have to admit that it looks horrible (at least at the first glance). If there's some programming style that I absolutely can't stand, it would be the one where programmer writes a huge block of commentary describing what a function does, followed by one-liner of code, which contains the same amount of information in itself. With doctest it is even worse, because examples also contain superfluous information. Everyone can just copy-paste the code in REPL and see what happens when you execute it. Besides that, there are many reasons why tests should be stored in a separate file, or at least not in the same function that they are testing. Also Wikipedia article contains some "Cons of doctest" that look pretty nasty: * Large numbers of tests in a docstring can become unwieldy. docstrings should be pruned and excised tests put in external file(s). * Tests producing large amounts of output make for large docstrings. * Debugging integration is far from perfect * 'print' (or 'trace') debugging is not possible (because it intervenes with the test result) * Test setup has to be either copied or hidden away from the test, making the overall environment harder to understand. * Many of the complex assertions of existing unit tests frameworks do not exist, (e.g. assertRaises, assertEquals, assertAlmostEqual, ...), although some are not necessary. * Failing assertions are very hard to debug (Especially in Web applications if the expected result is a web page with a lot of HTML) It's not surprising that no one uses this stuff for serious work. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:07:01 +1300, greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >Robert Uhl wrote: > >> o Symbols >> >> In Lisp, a symbol is essentially a hashed string; > >Are you aware that strings can be interned in Python? >Furthermore, any string literal in the source that >is a syntactically valid identifier is automatically >interned, and you can intern any string explicitly >if you need. This gives you exactly the same >capabilities as symbols in Lisp. Are you aware that you hardly know any Lisp yet make such bold and unfounded claims? Unless interning a string somehow gives it a property list, slot value and function value it doesn't give you the same capabilities. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
On 12 Dec 2006 18:03:49 -0800, "Paddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >There are a lot of people that use Wikipedia. I think some of them >might want to learn to program. I think you misunderstood the goal of Wikipedia. It is not to teach people programming. >I make it easier for them to find >Python by helping to maintain Python within Wikipedia. If someone wants to find Python, he types "Python" in the search bar and works from there. He certainly wouldn't end up in "doctest" article. >Some people dislike Wikipedia which is fine. Some people dislike >Wikipedia and deliberately sabotage it, which is vandalism. Writing vanity articles about non-notable things is not much better. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 04:57:20 -, Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >On Jun 23, 2:04 am, Robert Uhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Of course, emacs doesn't take years of mastery. It takes 30, 40 >> minutes. > >I gave it twice that, and it failed to grow on me in that amount of >time. > >> > Besides, ANY interface that involves fumbling around in the dark >> > trying to find a light switch is clunky. >> >> That sounds like vi, not emacs. > >That sounds like any application where you need to read the help, but >"f1" does not bring up a separate help window, switchable with the >main one using alt-tab or the mouse, and navigable using arrows, >pageup, pagedn, and the mouse. The result of that is invariably that >when the document has the focus, the help is open to "help on >switching windows" rather than whatever you need it to be on once the >document has the focus. You can read the help on doing what you want >to do with the document, but to apply it you need to transfer focus >back to the document. If doing that isn't second-nature, you have to >navigate the help away from where you need it to get the focus back to >the document. Now the focus is on the document, but the help you need >isn't displayed next to it anymore. Frustrating? You can't begin to >imagine, I suspect. Apparently, some people are born somehow able to >avoid this problem without having to memorize one or the other piece >of help. You're clearly one of those. I am equally clearly NOT one of >those. Of course, if emacs let you keep THREE windows open and visible >at the same time, instead of being limited to one or a horizontally >split two ... and a cramped 80x10 or so each, at that ... What an idiot. At least get yourt facts straight before posting such bullshit. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:07:04 -, Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >"Stubbornly insisting on being odd" appears to be a particularly >prevalent character flaw among the geeknoscenti. > Oh the irony. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:04:39 -, Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: > >> With a PS file you can do just one thing, execute it. It's a program, >> did you know ? > >For which you need an interpreter. Such as Ghostscript. Which is a >pain to install and a bigger one to configure, even on Windoze. > Lie. Ghostscript works out of the box on Windows. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: need scsh in a wikip article
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:10:09 -0700, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >> someone please add scsh there. > >Why can't YOU add scsh or I am missing something?? > Maybe he is banned? -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 06:48:05 GMT, "Mike Schilling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >Xah Lee wrote: > >> So, a simple code like this in normal languages: >> becomes in Java: >> >> > >Only when written by someone almost entirely ignorant of Java. > Which is the state most people want to be in... -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The Modernization of Emacs: terminology buffer and keybinding
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:43:39 +0200, Klaus Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: > >that's because it's immoral not to give it all > >which is necessary in a moral culture. >Only an immoral culture may accept non-disclosure > >private property is unethical > I see the light! You really won me over with your preaching. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Distributed RVS, Darcs, tech love
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:04:06 -0700, llothar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: > >> I love math. I respect Math. I'm nothing but a menial servant to >> Mathematics. > >Programming and use cases are not maths. Many mathematics are >the worst programmers i've seen because they want to solve things and >much more often you just need heuristics. Once they are into exact >world they loose there capability to see the factor of relevance in >algorithms. > >And they almost never match the mental model that the average >user has about a problem. I'm, not sure that I'm getting your point, but are you trying to argue that _not_ knowing mathemathics makes you a better programmer? Or maybe that learning math is useless to a programmer? This must be the most ignorant post I've seen this week. The *best* programmers I've seen actually had mathematic education. The programmers who don't know math are the ones who end up on DailyWTF. -- |Don't believe this - you're not worthless ,gr-.ru |It's us against millions and we can't take them all... | ue il | |But we can take them on! | @ma | | (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)|__| -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
