On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:31:06 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2009-07-26 09:16:39 -0400, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) said:
>
>> There are plenty of expert C++
>> programmers who switched to Python;
>
> "plenty" is an absolute term, not a relative term. I sincerely doubt
> that the majority o
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 02:36:39 +, sln wrote:
>>Whats os interresting about all this hullabaloo is that nobody has coded
>>machine code here, and know's squat about it.
>>
>>I'm not talking assembly language. Don't you know that there are
>>routines that program machine code? Yes, burned in, bitw
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:06:26 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
> Ken Tilton wrote:
>> Andrew Reilly wrote:
>>> However, in this particular instance, I'm inclined to wonder why
>>> meta-programming is the right answer, rather than just doing all of the
>>> interpola
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:01:46 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
> You just
> aren't used to thinking at a level where one is writing code to write code.
Firstly, I'm looking into lisp because my current python project is too
full of boilerplate :-) and too slow. Coming from a C and assembler
background,
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:35:48 +1300, greg wrote:
> When a Lisp compiler sees
>
>(setq c (+ a b))
>
> it can reasonably infer that the + is the built-in numeric
> addition operator. But a Python compiler seeing
>
>c = a + b
>
> can't tell *anything* about what the + means without
> knowi
