On Feb 29, 5:09 am, Xah Lee wrote:
> New Science Discovery: Perl Idiots Remain Idiots After A Decade!
>
> A excerpt from the new book 〈Modern Perl〉, just published, chapter 4
> on “Operators”. Quote:
>
> «The associativity of an operator governs whether it evaluates from
> left to right or right t
On Dec 22 2010, 12:46 pm, Xah Lee wrote:
> On Dec 20, 10:06 pm, "Jon Harrop" wrote:
>
> > Wasn't that the "challenge" where they wouldn't even accept solutions
> > written in many other languages (including both OCaml and F#)?
>
> Ocaml is one of the supported lang. See:
>
> http://ai-contest.com
On 2 dez, 15:06, Xah Lee wrote:
> discovered this rather late.
>
> Google has a AI Challenge: planet wars.http://ai-contest.com/index.php
>
> it started sometimes 2 months ago and ended first this month.
>
> the winner is Gábor Melis, with his code written in lisp.
>
> Congrats lispers!
>
> Gábor
On 25 nov, 14:30, m_mom...@yahoo.com (Mario S. Mommer) wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro
> writes:
>
> > On 2010-11-24 16:19:49 -0500, toby said:
>
> >> And furthermore, he has cooties.
>
> > Once again, not all ad hominem arguments are ad hominem
> > fallacies. Financial conflict of interest is a prime
On 25 nov, 09:23, Elena wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:09 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko wrote:
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new
> > > portable
On 22 nov, 14:47, Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:14:40 -0800 (PST), toby
>
> wrote:
> >This is a good (if familiar) observation. Teaching children (or young
> >people with little exposure to computers) how to program in various
> >paradigms could produce interesting primary evidenc
On 29 out, 19:06, Alessio Stalla wrote:
> On 28 Ott, 10:42, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>
> > sthueb...@googlemail.com (Stefan Hübner) writes:
> > >> Would it be right to say that the only Lisp still in common use is the
> > >> Elisp
> > >> built into Emacs?
>
> > > Cl
On 27 out, 21:55, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Would it be right to say that the only Lisp still in common use is the Elisp
> built into Emacs?
Perhaps you should ask Google's Peter Norvig...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 28 out, 07:02, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> Alain Ketterlin writes:
> > Lawrence D'Oliveiro writes:
>
> Would it be right to say that the only Lisp still in common use is the
> Elisp built into Emacs?
>
> >>> There is a new version of Lisp called Clojure th
On 28 out, 06:46, Xah Lee wrote:
> lol. He said REAL!
>
> how about the 10 Scheme Lisps on JVM? guess they are UNREAL. lol
you know only CL is the real lisp and schmers are just zanny time-
travelling folks as the webcomic depict. :p
> btw, who cross posted this thread to python? i call troll!
On 27 out, 09:46, Xah Lee wrote:
> The Land Of Lisp is out!
>
> http://landoflisp.com/
>
> Very well done site.
>
> spread the news, team lisp!
>
> Xah
haha, I've read some of the comics before. It's truly remarkably
funny, no matter the language of your choice...
going well down the rabbit ho
On 14 out, 00:26, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
> BTW, you mentioned symbols ('$', '.' and '>>='), which are not syntactic
> sugar at all. They are just normal functions, for which it makes sense
> to be infix. The fact that you sold them as syntactic sugar or
> "perlisms" proves that you have no ide
On 13 out, 19:41, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> namekuseijin writes:
> > On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko wrote:
> >> Hello,
>
> >> I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new
> >> portable assembler
On 13 out, 21:01, Ertugrul Söylemez wrote:
> What exactly is "friggin' huge" and "complex" about Haskell, and what's
> this stuff about a "very own monolithic gcc"? Haskell isn't a lot more
> complex than Scheme. In fact, Python is much more complex. Reduced to
> bare metal (i.e. leaving out sy
On 11 out, 08:49, Oleg Parashchenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to try the idea that Scheme can be considered as a new
> portable assembler. We could code something in Scheme and then compile
> it to PHP or Python or Java or whatever.
>
> Any suggestions and pointers to existing and related work
On 30 set, 09:35, namekuseijin wrote:
> On 29 set, 11:04, w_a_x_man wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 9:24 am, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> > wrote:
>
> > > Xah Lee writes:
> > > > here's a interesting toy list processing
On 29 set, 11:04, w_a_x_man wrote:
> On Sep 26, 9:24 am, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Xah Lee writes:
> > > here's a interesting toy list processing problem.
>
> > > I have a list of lists, where each sublist is labelled by
> > > a number. I need to collect to
On 29 set, 17:46, Xah Lee wrote:
> On Sep 29, 11:02 am, namekuseijin wrote:
>
> > On 28 set, 19:38, Xah Lee wrote:
>
> > > • “list comprehension” is a very bad jargon; thus harmful to
> > > functional programing or programing in general. Being a bad jargon, it
On 28 set, 19:38, Xah Lee wrote:
> • “list comprehension” is a very bad jargon; thus harmful to
> functional programing or programing in general. Being a bad jargon, it
> encourage mis-communication, mis-understanding.
I disagree: it is a quite intuitive term to describe what the
expression does
On 27 set, 18:39, Xah Lee wrote:
> On Sep 27, 12:11 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
>
> > On 27 set, 16:06, Xah Lee wrote:> 2010-09-27
>
> > > > For instance, this is far more convenient:
> > > > [x+1 for x in [1,2,3,4,5] if x%2==0]
> > > > than
On 27 set, 16:06, Xah Lee wrote:
> 2010-09-27
>
> > For instance, this is far more convenient:
> > [x+1 for x in [1,2,3,4,5] if x%2==0]
> > than this:
> > map(lambda x:x+1,filter(lambda x:x%2==0,[1,2,3,4,5]))
>
> How about this:
[snip]
how about this: read before replying.
--
http://mail.python
On 27 set, 05:46, TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
> On Sep 27, 12:58 am, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
> > RG writes:
> > > In article
> > > <7df0eb06-9be1-4c9c-8057-e9fdb7f0b...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > TheFlyingDutchman wrote:
>
> > >> On Sep 22, 10:26 pm, "Scot
Xah Lee escreveu:
reddit = porn fodder
Didn't realize, but Reddit is now a porn fodder.
http://www.reddit.com/r/LegalTeens/
http://www.reddit.com/r/highheels
http://www.reddit.com/r/gonewild/
Its traffic also seems to incleased 10 times since 2008. See: Computer
Language Websites Popularity.
So, I was trying to get the yafaray raytracer to work with the 3D
package Blender, but it asks for python2.6 and all I got is a 2.5.
Actually, quite a lot of other related Blender packages are also
migrating to 2.6, so a compilation was inevitable.
Then I go:
./configure --prefix=~/ && make &&
Phil Bewig escreveu:
Please visit my blog, Programming Praxis, which presents a collection
of programming etudes. Newbies will find exercises that extend their
programming abilities. Savvy programmers can use the exercises to
sharpen their skills or learn a new language. Brave programmers can
On May 21, 7:47 am, s...@viridian.paintbox (Sion Arrowsmith) wrote:
> Duncan Booth wrote:
>
> >namekuseijin wrote:
> >> I find it completely unimaginable that people would even think
> >> suggesting the idea that Java is simpler. It's one of the most stupidl
Ant escreveu:
# Python
fh = open("myfile.txt")
for line in fh:
print line
// Java
...
BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new FileReader
("myfile.txt"));
String line = reader.readLine();
while (line != null) {
System.out.println(line);
}
...
And that's without all of the clas
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:21 PM, David Stanek wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:43 PM, namekuseijin wrote:
>> someone said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you took a look at Java, you would
>>>>>> notice that the core language syntax is much sim
someone said:
If you took a look at Java, you would
notice that the core language syntax is much simpler than Python's.
thanks for the laughs whoever you are!
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On May 8, 12:48 pm, Andreas Rumpf wrote:
> Dear Python-users,
>
> I invented a new programming language called "Nimrod" that combines Python's
> readability with C's performance. Please check it out:http://force7.de/nimrod/
> Any feedback is appreciated.
heh, looks more like a streamlined Object
On May 12, 4:12 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" wrote:
> namekuseijin schrieb:
> > Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> >> namekuseijin schrieb:
> >>> bav escreveu:
> >>>> question from a python newbie;
> >>>>
> >>>> how c
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
namekuseijin schrieb:
bav escreveu:
question from a python newbie;
how can i consume in python language, a .NET web service, passing
a string array as parameter in some easy steps?
Unless Microsoft extended the standard in any way, then it should be
just as you
bav escreveu:
question from a python newbie;
how can i consume in python language, a .NET web service, passing
a string array as parameter in some easy steps?
Unless Microsoft extended the standard in any way, then it should be
just as you consume any web service, I guess. ;)
--
a game
On May 10, 7:18 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
> On May 10, 12:40 pm, namekuseijin
> wrote:
> theoretical argument like, "everything reduces to a function so it
> doesn't matter what syntax you use," yet people in the real world are
> out there trying to find alternative
Carl Banks wrote:
On May 9, 10:57 am, namekuseijin
wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
On May 8, 7:19 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
In Haskell, Lisp and other functional programming languages, any extra
syntax gets converted into the core lambda constructs.
So? The
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 14:57:24 -0300, namekuseijin wrote:
I'm saying syntax is nothing special. They are user-defined, as
functions. And it all gets converted into functions. Functions matter,
syntax is irrelevant because you can do away with it.
How d
Carl Banks wrote:
On May 8, 7:19 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
In Haskell, Lisp and other functional programming languages, any extra
syntax gets converted into the core lambda constructs.
So? The user still uses that syntax, so how can you claim it doesn&#
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message <692b7ae8-0c5b-498a-
a012-51bda980f...@s28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>, namekuseijin wrote:
On May 8, 6:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message , namekuseijin wrote:
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However, functional programming is crypt
On May 8, 3:37 am, guptha wrote:
> The code Works fine ,but I doubt about the performance issue ,My
> intention is to send mails concurrently to large number of mail.
> 1.For every mail id i send It creates a new SMTP object,in case, if i
> send to 1000 or more ids
why should I help a spammer...
On May 8, 10:13 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
> On May 8, 5:47 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
>
> > My point is that when all you do is call functions, syntax is
> > irrelevant. You call functions pretty much in the same way regardless
> > of language: functionname, opt
On May 8, 7:22 pm, Carl Banks wrote:
> On May 8, 1:56 pm, namekuseijin wrote:
> > Carl Banks escreveu:
> > > 2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
> > > how nice you make the syntax.
>
> > When your program is nothing
On May 8, 6:48 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message , namekuseijin wrote:
>
> > Carl Banks escreveu:
>
> >> 2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
> >> how nice you make the syntax.
>
> > When your program
Carl Banks escreveu:
2. However, functional programming is cryptic at some level no matter
how nice you make the syntax.
When your program is nothing but function definition and function
application, syntax is meaningless.
It's kinda like scripting, say, Microsoft Word in either Visual Basic
prueba...@latinmail.com escreveu:
Don't forget that the Python interpreter is simple. It makes
maintenance easier and allows embedding it into other programs. Good
optimizing compilers for functional languages are not simple.
Good optimizing compilers are not simple, period.
The python interpr
2009/5/5 Ricardo Aráoz :
> This seems to work for any length tuples :
>
a = [(1,2), (3,4, 'goes'), (5,None), (6,7, 8, 'as', None), (8, None),
(9, 0)]
[tup for tup in a if not [e for e in tup if e == None]]
> [(1, 2), (3, 4, 'goes'), (9, 0)]
Why that extra "for"? KISS
>>> a = [(1,2
On May 4, 9:15 am, David Robinow wrote:
> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 2:33 AM, namekuseijin
>
> wrote:
> >>>> ls = [(1,2), (3,4), (5, None), (6,7), (8, None)]
> >>>> [(x,y) for (x,y) in ls if y]
> > [(1, 2), (3, 4), (6, 7)]
>
> Nope. That filte
>>> ls = [(1,2), (3,4), (5, None), (6,7), (8, None)]
>>> [(x,y) for (x,y) in ls if y]
[(1, 2), (3, 4), (6, 7)]
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Recursion is unpythonic. Do not use it.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I'm from the time when I inspected python objects themselves, say:
print obj.__doc__
or
dir( obj )
to know the goodies...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Dan Sommers escreveu:
Yes, I agree: Python and Lisp are extremely dynamic languages. I *can*
redefine map, reduce, +, and other operators and functions, but I know
better. When is the last time you examined someone else's code, and
asked them what their "map" function did (in Lisp or in Pyth
Dan Sommers wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:57:00 +0300, Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
I agree with your opinion about keeping the abstraction layers
shallow, but in my view high-order and helper functions do not comprise
a new abstraction layer. For example in Lisp, using map, reduce (fold),
Travis wrote:
I've noticed that every one of you is wrong about programming.
Since I can't say it effectively, here's someone who can:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHosLhPEN3k
That's the answer.
Hmm, perhaps it was the answer by the time that song was written? ;)
cool anyway... :)
--
http:/
Paul Rubin wrote:
namekuseijin writes:
return (len(a) == len(b)) and not any(not comp(*t) for t in
(zip(a, b)))
plus the zip call enclosed in parentheses got turned into an iterator.
zip in python 2.x always makes a list. You want itertools.izip.
You could also use itertools.starmap
On Apr 26, 1:31 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:01:10 -0700, Carl Banks wrote:
> > That's because Python lists aren't lists.
>
> Surely you meant to say that Lisp lists aren't lists?
>
> It-all-depends-on-how-you-define-lists-ly y'rs,
Yeah, the List Processing language got it
On Apr 25, 4:34 am, Michele Simionato
wrote:
> which has some feature you may like. For instance,
> there is a weak form of pattern matching built-in:
>
> >>> head, *tail = [1,2,3] # Python 3.0 only!
> >>> head
> 1
> >>> tail
>
> [2, 3]
Good seeing yet another long time Perl feature finally broug
Ciprian Dorin, Craciun wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:54 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
I liked very much your implementation for the compare function, it
is very short and at the same time readable:
def compare(a, b, comp=operator.eq):
return (len(a) == len(b)) and all(comp(*t) for t in
Paul Rubin wrote:
Python tries to be simple and pragmatic while not aiming for as
heavy-duty applications as Common Lisp. Scheme is more of a research
language that's way past its prime. If you like Scheme, you should
try Haskell. Python has the motto "practicality beats purity".
With Haskell,
That was amusing, but that's not a question of Lisp vs Python
programmers, just one of fun vs practicality. Mark Tarver is the
implementor of Qi, a higher order Lisp of sorts. He's writing a
compiler from Qi to Python and was learning Python along the way.
He's having fun with it, not writin
Paul Rubin wrote:
Carl Banks writes:
Python programmer:
a == b. Next question.
in lisp you'd use (equal a b)
I see you walk both sides. :)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The real issue here has nothing to do with closures, lexical capture or
anything like that. It's a long known issue called side-effects.
Trying to program in a functional style in the presence of side-effects
is bad. *for* is the main perpetrator of side-effects here, because it
updates its
Jebel escreveu:
Hi ,everyone. I have the name of a function of C language, and have
the source file which the function is defined in. And I want to find
out the type and name of the parameters. If I need to analyze the file
by myself, or have some way to do it more easily?
ever heard of grep?
Google's automatic chat logging is nice too. My first online python
tutorial for someone who never saw it before (sorry for not being in
english):
14/09/08
00:50 KALEL: I'm on Phyton Shell
00:52 me: cool
let's go
type it: 2
just to get rid of your fears... :)
KALEL: Hah hah hah hah
me:
Avi escreveu:
A BIG Thanks to Chris and Andrew for suggestions.
This is an awesome place.
namekuseijin: haha...got a friend hooked to Python on chat? hilarious!
True story. But he was already a programmer. Only Pascal Delphi though.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
--
http
I was able to get a friend into Python over a Google Chat. I pointed
him to the downloads page, waited for him to install, then covered the
basics in quite a few steps (syntax, conditionals, loops, function
definition and application, classes and methods, lists, dicts and
comprehensions).
He
On 21 out, 15:59, "Sebastian Bassi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I was just wondering, if you wish to commercialize an application
> > developed in Python, what's the way to go?
>
> You choose the conditions. Nothing i
On 28 set, 15:29, process <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have heard some criticism about Python, that it is not fully object-
> oriented.
So what?
> Why isn't len implemented as a str.len and list.len method instead of
> a len(list) function?
Because postfix notation sucks. The natural way of s
On 29 set, 14:16, "Blubaugh, David A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To All,
>
> I was wondering if it was possible to have a situation where a
> programming project would utilized BOTH python and perl? Such as
> utilizing python for internet programming and then utilize perl for text
> processing
On 23 set, 22:50, Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find I'm often tripped up by:
>
> x = Y (lots of constructor arguments) if something ...
>
> on first glance, I don't notice the if.
Nobody does. This peculiar syntax has much better usage in short
expressions. dothis if this else
On 23 set, 20:52, Neal Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In hindsight, I am disappointed with the choice of conditional syntax. I
> know it's too late to change. The problem is
>
> y = some thing or other if x else something_else
>
> When scanning this my eye tends to see the first phrase and
On Sep 23, 10:57 am, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAICT, _everybody_ is bad at programming C++.
Thankfully, at least Numpy developers are not bad at C programming.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sep 23, 2:07 pm, Jason Scheirer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 7:48 am, hrishy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi
>
> > Will LINQ be ported to Python ?
>
> > regards
> > Hrishy
>
> I think this question is more appropriate to ask on an IronPython
> development list -- LINQ is pretty so
71 matches
Mail list logo
