Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?

tancy. Pure logic alone won't help you here; the ordinary human social skill of inferring a person's motives does. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?

fall into the error of believing that "ad hominem" automatically means "logically invalid." This is not the case. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?

s substantially different from "render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect." They are substantially the same, your jesuitical nit-picking notwithstanding; JH is an untrustworthy source on matters relating to the languages he sells training for. warmest regards, Ral

Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?

therefore financially motivated to present these languages in the best possible light and to trash-talk other languages), render his arguments in the debate inherently suspect. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?

rogramming languages. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Scheme as a virtual machine?

we cannot expect a fair judgement on the relative value of various language tools from a person whose livlihood depends on the audience choosing only those certain language tools that he sells services and training for. warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.o

Re: "Strong typing vs. strong testing"

armest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: "Strong typing vs. strong testing"

n of (FIB 1000) User time=0.760 System time =0.007 Elapsed time =0.748 Allocation = 474522008 bytes 147 Page faults 43466557686937456435688527675040625802564660517371780402481729089536555417949051890403879840079255169295922593080322634775209689623239873322471161642996440906533187

Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

with practicality. php has a limited range of utility. Within that range, it's clearly quite useful. Python is useful for a greater range of tasks which makes it a more generally useful (and in this sense, better) language. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

in. Beyond that, it is clearly inferior to python which has greater power, but is more difficult to master. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

ocre programmers and even some non-programmers, which means that php is clearly a lesser language than python. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

latable to the average programmer, just as php became popular because it is powerful enough to do websites and, most importantly, apprehensible to mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

ith C. The existence of the GIL means that in reality you'd probably need a several hundred core machine running python just to equal what C can do on one core. Hence the 13375p34k pseudo quote - "teh slowness on all ur cores!" -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mai

Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

On 2009-07-21 19:06:02 -0400, Neil Hodgson said: Python uses native threads. So it can be teh-slowness on all ur cores! <http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=nbody&lang=all> The global interpreter lock doesn't help much either. -- Raffael Cav

Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

planty of developing last year[s], ccl licence permits you to deliver closed source programs ... CCL is promising bright feature to CL since looks like the insist of building stable implementation across most arch in use today Hear, hear! -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman

Re: Lisp for the C21

On 2007-05-04 11:32:14 -0400, Paul Rubin said: > Anyone who didn't love lisp in the 20th century has no heart. > Anyone who still loves it in the 21st, has no head. By the same logic we should all be conservative Republicans. Given this implication, I'll stick with lis

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 12:52:34 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Implementing pattern matching does not mean imitating Haskell or OCaml. We were explicitly comparing lisp with haskell and ocaml. Adding features built into haskell and ocaml but not present in ANSI common lisp would therefore

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 12:49:46 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > For example, when faced with a problem best solved using pattern matching > in Lisp, most Lisp programmers would reinvent an ad-hoc, informally > specified and bug-ridden pattern matcher of their own. No, I think most of us woul

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > After all, > Haskell and OCaml are more popular that any given Lisp variant with similar > features (e.g. pattern matching), AFAIK. What doublespeak! haskell and ocaml are more popular than any lisp library that tries to imita

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > What if eager impurity isn't the "very nature" of the problem but, rather, > is the very nature of Tilton's chosen solution? That's the whole point which you keep missing - that a programming language is expressive precisely to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-16 13:58:37 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Why do you think that uniform syntax is necessary to provide new paradigms > when it is equivalent to infix syntax? Because it doesn't require one to write a parser for each new syntax for each new paradigm. > In what way is H

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-16 08:21:59 -0500, Paul Rubin said: > It never occurs to Lisp programmers that Lisp, too, might be a Blub. Of course it does - Thats why we try ocaml and haskell etc. It's just that we don't see the useful features of these languages as being sufficiently u

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-12 19:18:10 -0500, "George Sakkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > If you mistakenly select an extra parenthesis or omit one, it's > the same thing. Because you can't mistakenly select an extra paren or omit one in a lisp-aware editor. Whether its a commercial lisp IDE or emacs, you don'

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-17 07:03:19 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I don't see static checking and explorative programming as opposites. > Of course, in practice, environments that combine these don't seem to > exist (except maybe in experimental or little-known state). Right. Unfortuna

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-16 17:59:07 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > I think it's easier to start with a good (!) statically-typed language > and relax the checking, than to start with a dynamically-typed one and > add static checks. > With the right restrictions, a language can make all

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-16 05:22:08 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > And this is a typical dynamic type advocate's response when told that static typing has different needs: > "*I* don't see the usefulness of static typing so *you* shouldn't want it, either." But I haven't made this sort

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-16 05:22:08 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > And this is a typical dynamic type advocate's response when told that > static typing has different needs: > > "*I* don't see the usefulness of static typing so *you* shouldn't want > it, either." But I haven't made th

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-16 11:29:12 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> said: > In software like this it isn't worth satisfying a static type checker > because you don't get much of the benefit > anywaytext Dx¤descriptio

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-16 05:22:08 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > And this is a typical dynamic type advocate's response when told that > static typing has different needs: > > "*I* don't see the usefulness of static typing so *you* shouldn't want > it, either." But I haven't made th

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-14 16:36:52 -0400, Pascal Bourguignon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > In lisp, all lists are homogenous: lists of T. CL-USER 123 > (loop for elt in (list #\c 1 2.0d0 (/ 2 3)) collect (type-of elt)) (CHARACTER FIXNUM DOUBLE-FLOAT RATIO) i.e., "heterogenous" in the common lisp sense: havin

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-14 15:04:34 -0400, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Um... heterogenous lists are not necessarily a sign of expressiveness. > The vast majority of cases can be transformed to homogenous lists > (though these might then contain closures or OO objects). > > As to references

Re: What is Expressiveness in a Computer Language

On 2006-06-14 09:42:25 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Torben Ægidius Mogensen) said: > It takes longer for the average > programmer to get the program working in the dynamically typed > language. Though I agree with much of your post I would say that many here find the opposite to be true - it takes

Re: "Only one obvious way..."

On 2006-05-08 02:51:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > The phrase "only one obvious way..." is nearly the most absurd > marketing bullshit I have ever heard; topped only by "it fits your > brain". Why are so many clearly intelligent and apparently > self-respecting hard-core software engineers re