On Wed, Mar 12, 2014, at 15:04, FRIGN wrote:
> Impressive, but better use
> $ LD_TRACE_LOADED_OBJECTS=1 t
> instead of
> $ ldd t
> next time to prevent arbitrary code-execution[1] in case you're dealing
> with unknown binaries.
I don't know if it was here and you or somewhere else or someone els
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:49:54 +0100
q...@c9x.me wrote:
> Maybe surprisingly, then:
>
> ~% cat > t.ml
> let () = print_string "hello world\n"
> ~% ocamlopt -o t t.ml
> ~% strip t
> ~% ls -lh t
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 users 124K Mar 12 16:48 t
> ~% ldd t
> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7fffbed7)
>
Hi all,
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:49:07PM +0100, Troels Henriksen wrote:
> FRIGN writes:
>
> > Yes, that's a point. Go implements GC and other stuff in the binary,
> > which blows its size up a lot.
>
> (I do not use Go myself, but in the Haskell world we have a similar
> issue - my current pr
Hi,
2014-03-05 16:58 GMT+01:00 FRIGN :
>> C programs can also be run as scripts, but it doesn't make C a
>> scripting language.
>
> Where did you pick that up?
Several options are available for using C as a scripting language:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/1513961/131264
> I agree on that point. L
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:20:43 +0100
Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> If you don't think the definition of a compiled language is that it
> can be compiled down to native code, I would love to hear your
> definition.
Well, then any language would be a compiled language.
The problem here is, that the lang
Hi,
2014-03-05 15:41 GMT+01:00 FRIGN :
> Well, you could also compile shell-scripts if you had the time to write
> the proper interfaces. Does this make it a compiled language? Hell no!
Yes, if shell-scripts are _compiled_ to native code, then it would
make them _compiled_.
> It still is a scr
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 17:26:46 +0100
Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> Nuitka compiles Python to C++. I never made any claims about speed and
> think the two should not be conflated.
> Python can now also be compiled, and should be counted as a compiled language.
Well, you could also compile shell-scripts
Hi,
2014-03-05 15:05 GMT+01:00 FRIGN :
> Benchmarks or it didn't happen.
Nuitka compiles Python to C++. I never made any claims about speed and
think the two should not be conflated.
Python can now also be compiled, and should be counted as a compiled language.
> Or just leave it to the develop
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:50:58 +0100
Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> After Nuitka arrived (http://nuitka.net/), Python is also a "proper
> compiled language" (if it wasn't already, because of Shedskin
> http://code.google.com/p/shedskin/).
Benchmarks or it didn't happen. Python-compilers aren't a new th
Hi,
2014-03-03 23:25 GMT+01:00 koneu :
> Isn't Python that white space sensitive crap people like to use instead
> of proper compiled languages?
After Nuitka arrived (http://nuitka.net/), Python is also a "proper
compiled language" (if it wasn't already, because of Shedskin
http://code.google.co
Hey,
As a new Python programmer, there are only a few things that have so
far bothered me:
* Python 2-3 transition (I ended up learning 2 "by accident", but
easily learned 3 as they are quite similar)
* Packaging/Module system (Maybe just because I haven't had enough
experience with it...)
* Pyth
The name.
On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 14:49:07 +0100
Troels Henriksen wrote:
> A solution to this is to implement the GC (and other runtime parts) as a
> dynamic library. This code would also be shared in memory by all
> running Go processes.
Well, I tried that and it worked. The Hello-World-binary is around 19K
FRIGN writes:
> Yes, that's a point. Go implements GC and other stuff in the binary,
> which blows its size up a lot.
> However, if we take the Hello-World-program as the lowest common
> denominator, we could calculate, that if we ported all basic tools in
> sbase (currently 70) to the Go languag
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:16:13 -0800
Anthony Martin wrote:
> People are working on this:
Well, then let's see what time will bring us ;).
Cheers
FRIGN
--
FRIGN
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:27:24 +0800
Chris Down wrote:
> Storage space is really cheap. If there is some reason that it is
> desirable for the binaries to be bigger as a tradeoff, I am all in
> favour of it (of course, if the binary size can be reduced without much
> complication, I'm also in favour
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Silvan Jegen [2014-03-04 21:30:47 +0100]:
>> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:56:18PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>> > dont expect fast opengl access from go) and you cannot really
>> > use it for quick scripting tasks
>>
>> Why should Go not be
FRIGN writes:
> Well, what I noticed is the huge size of the compiled binaries.
> 2.2M for a "Hello World"-program is an unreasonable demand. It's
> possible to strip the size to around 1.2M by passing
> -ldflags '-s -w'
> to "go build".
> This is quite inhibiting, but I'm glad to see this mo
FRIGN once said:
> Well, what I noticed is the huge size of the compiled binaries.
> 2.2M for a "Hello World"-program is an unreasonable demand. It's
> possible to strip the size to around 1.2M by passing
> -ldflags '-s -w'
> to "go build".
> This is quite inhibiting, but I'm glad to see thi
* Szabolcs Nagy 2014-03-04 20:57
> […]
thanks you cared to explain
--s.
* Silvan Jegen [2014-03-04 21:30:47 +0100]:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:56:18PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > dont expect fast opengl access from go) and you cannot really
> > use it for quick scripting tasks
>
> Why should Go not be suited for quick scripting tasks? I use Go to parse
> text f
On 03/04/2014 09:23 PM, Zack Breckenridge wrote:
I would say these are both pretty good indictments against both
languages. So what are some preferred alternatives?
I like Squirrel[0] and Solid[1] alot. Both of them interact well with
C. The Solid runtime is written in pure C, so it is the prefe
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:56:18PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Silvan Jegen [2014-03-04 14:27:26 +0100]:
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:25 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> > > A question to everyone on this list: What do you think about the
> > > Go-language?
> >
> > I used Python for all my scripting needs
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Silvan Jegen [2014-03-04 14:27:26 +0100]:
> the heavy python runtime has unspecified interactions ...
> go is not very good for either of these: it cannot directly
> interact with anything written in c (it has a hack (cgo) ...
I would s
* Silvan Jegen [2014-03-04 14:27:26 +0100]:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:25 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> > A question to everyone on this list: What do you think about the
> > Go-language?
>
> I used Python for all my scripting needs before Golang hit version 1.0
i hear this a lot and don't quite understan
> I'm afraid to ask: what do you think about the Rust language?
Personally, I mostly really like Go. But I would say one of my biggest
problems with Go is (as far as I know) forced Garbage Collection.
Depending on your point of view, that's either a strength or weakness
of the language. From what
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:25 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> A question to everyone on this list: What do you think about the
> Go-language?
I'm afraid to ask: what do you think about the Rust language?
Hello,
Strake wrote:
> * Member selection is in some cases cumbersome, in which it would not
> be in C, which is related to ¬(variant types)
Can you explain more what you mean?
yours,
Bobby
FRIGN wrote:
> You can write beautiful and readable code in any language.
[assuming that "you" means the reader in general, not S. Jegen in particular]
False. I can't write such code in MATLAB, for example.
> A question to everyone on this list: What do you think about the Go-language?
I'm not
* Silvan Jegen [2014-03-04 14:30]:
* There are no generics (it is not clear at the moment whether they
will be incorporated into the language in the future) but with my
simple requirements I have not been missing them.
They will be incorporated as soon as someone finds a good solution to this
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 14:27:26 +0100
Silvan Jegen wrote:
> I am quite sure I would find more issues with Golang if I would be
> writing more substantial programs but until then I will be happily
> coding more in it.
Well, what I noticed is the huge size of the compiled binaries.
2.2M for a "Hello W
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:25 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> A question to everyone on this list: What do you think about the
> Go-language?
I used Python for all my scripting needs before Golang hit version 1.0
(around two years ago). After giving it another look then, I have come
to prefer it over Python. Th
I use python. But only less often. The last time I use it is when I tried
processing txt files contents which includes string manipulations, regex
matching, etc.
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:51 PM, psepheroth wrote:
I use python. But only less often. The last time I use it is when I tried
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:25:26AM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> A question to everyone on this list: What do you think about the
> Go-language?
I have no experience with python, but I use golang a lot.
Lua is also quite fun to code in.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:05:54 +0100
Manolo Martínez wrote:
>But I haven't experienced any maleficency yet :)
I probably haven't chosen the right words for it. I referred
maleficency to the breaking of language-conventions, because you handle
those special types. Quite similar to what you can see w
On 03/04/14 at 08:37am, FRIGN wrote:
> No wonder, given Numpy and Scipy are mostly written in C and Fortran ;).
That is true. As an aside, apparently Julia scientific
ibraries are mostly written in Julia, which makes me wonder.
> Moreover, from what I understand, you actually use special types
>
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:18:02 +0100
Manolo Martínez wrote:
> I am not a programmer, but I write code in scientific modelling. Python
> + Numpy + Scipy (which, I understand, takes care of typing in a
> reasonable manner) is plenty fast, and very readable (and writable).
No wonder, given Numpy and S
On 03/04/14 at 07:49am, FRIGN wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:14:05 +0100
> Silvan Jegen wrote:
> > My biggest gripe with the language is the absence of static type
> > checking at compile time.
> In some cases, Python is up to 50% slower than well-written C, but to
> be fair, it does the memory
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:14:05 +0100
Silvan Jegen wrote:
> I have been using Python for a few years and never had any version
> management issues. I assume this was because I use it for simple
> scripting where mostly the standard library was needed which is
> actually an argument for the "batteries
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:59 AM, Zack Breckenridge wrote:
> All language issues aside, I think one of the things (that others have
> touched on here but I'd like to reiterate) that makes something
> suckless is fewer dependencies and less version management.
>
> Due to Python's "batteries included"
All language issues aside, I think one of the things (that others have
touched on here but I'd like to reiterate) that makes something
suckless is fewer dependencies and less version management.
Due to Python's "batteries included" philosophy and the large amount
of 3rd party libraries often used,
> On 03/03/2014 11:21 PM, Szymon Olewniczak wrote:
> > [a whole load of quoting]
Mind trimming your quotes?
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:25:18PM +0100, koneu wrote:
> Isn't Python that white space sensitive crap
How does that have any bearing on sucklessness? It's a separate
argument. Practically
Quoth FRIGN:
> I recently thought about porting portage (written in Python) to C and
> read into its source code.
> Calling it a mess is a compliment, given there are almost no comments
> and lots of deprecated functions.
> Portage is not only an example for quite unmaintainable code, but also
> fo
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 11:21:02PM +0100, Szymon Olewniczak wrote:
> […] I must admit that I've found Python much less harmful that I had
> previously considered it to be.
Do you care about the language or a particular implementation?
For the latter, packaging sucks, it has libraries to deal with
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 00:06:19 +0100
v4hn wrote:
> In the end, there a lot of people who learnt to write unmaintainable code.
> I seriously prefer perl-programmers who know what they're doing.
Which brings us back to stali:
I recently thought about porting portage (written in Python) to C and
read
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:35:18PM +0100, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 23:21:02 +0100
> Szymon Olewniczak wrote:
> > (...) and I must admit that I've found Python much less
> > harmful that I had previously considered it to be.
>
> I agree on this one. The language designers did a good job.
On 03/03/2014 11:21 PM, Szymon Olewniczak wrote:
Hi,
I've recently had a presentation(during local Linux User Group meeting)
about some basic ideas Unix philosophy and suckless projects. This has led
my attention once to the topic of programming languages and I must admit
that I've found Python m
Greetings.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 23:31:43 +0100 Szymon Olewniczak
wrote:
> Hi,
> I've recently had a presentation(during local Linux User Group meeting)
> about some basic ideas Unix philosophy and suckless projects. This has led
> my attention once to the topic of programming languages and I mus
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 23:21:02 +0100
Szymon Olewniczak wrote:
> (...) and I must admit that I've found Python much less
> harmful that I had previously considered it to be.
I agree on this one. The language designers did a good job.
The only _big_ problem I have with it is the fact it's not compil
Hi,
I've recently had a presentation(during local Linux User Group meeting)
about some basic ideas Unix philosophy and suckless projects. This has led
my attention once to the topic of programming languages and I must admit
that I've found Python much less harmful that I had previously
considered
50 matches
Mail list logo
