On 02/19/2016 06:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:39 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
[snip]
But you can't do anything interesting with this language, so it is not
satisfying. On the other hand, here's "Hello World" in another language,
one which is Turing complete so it can do anyt
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 07:40 pm, Terry Reedy wrote:
> 8. 2.x has two subtlely different types of classes. The 2.x docs do not
> document the type of builtin and stdlib classes. I discovered that
> tkinter classes are still old-style in 2.7 when I backported a patch
> from 3.x to 2.7 and it mysteriou
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:39 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Consider as hypothesis
> L1: Needs 4 weeks to master
A language that only takes 4 weeks to master, starting from zero programming
experience, clearly doesn't include much in the way of features.
> L2: Needs 4 years to manage (if you want to mak
On 2016-02-19, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Pascal was easy to learn and powerful, but it made the mistake of not
> standardising on a few critical functions that production languages need,
> like strings. Nevertheless, for the first 10 or 15 years, Apple used a mix
> of Pascal and assembly to write
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 6:48:12 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>
> But apart from that, I think that "teaching" versus "doing" language is a
> false dichotomy. Teaching languages should have a shallow learning curve
> (easy to get started and learn the language, easy discoverabili
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:22:10 PM UTC+5:30, Random832 wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, at 07:25, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > My beef is somewhat different: viz that post 70s (Pascal) and 80s
> > (scheme)
> > programming pedagogy has deteriorated with general purpose languages
> > replacing
> >
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 02:51 am, Random832 wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, at 07:25, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> My beef is somewhat different: viz that post 70s (Pascal) and 80s
>> (scheme)
>> programming pedagogy has deteriorated with general purpose languages
>> replacing
>> 'teaching-purpose language' f
On 18.02.2016 07:59, Paul Rubin wrote:
Steven D'Aprano writes:
I suppose that it is objectively correct that it is harder to learn
than Python 2. But I don't think the learning curve is any steeper. If
anything, the learning curve is ever-so-slightly less steep.
I think py3 has more learning c
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 11:28:17 PM UTC-8, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 5) print statement/function. Py3 forces you to put parentheses on it,
> which is no different from C's printf() or Pike's write() or any
> number of other languages where console I/O needs no language support.
> Maybe a
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:07 Chris Angelico wrote:
> By the way... For bash users, adding this to .bashrc may make venvs a
> bit easier to keep straight:
>
> checkdir() {
> [ -n "$VIRTUAL_ENV" ] && ! [[ `pwd` =~ `dirname $VIRTUAL_ENV`* ]]
> && echo Deactivating venv $VIRTUAL_ENV... && deactivate
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, at 07:25, Rustom Mody wrote:
> My beef is somewhat different: viz that post 70s (Pascal) and 80s
> (scheme)
> programming pedagogy has deteriorated with general purpose languages
> replacing
> 'teaching-purpose language' for teaching.
The flaw in this idea is right there in
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:17:26 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 February 2016 19:51, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> > I hope someone can help me find this link: There is some record that Guido
> > has said that python3 is probably a bit harder on noobs than python2.
> >
>
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Cem Karan wrote:
> I agree with Chris on all his points. My personal feeling is that Py3 is the
> way to go for teaching in the future; its just that little bit more
> consistent across the board. And the things that are confusing are not
> things that beginne
On Feb 18, 2016, at 4:57 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>> To my mind, the numerous duplications and overlaps in 2.7 that are gone in
>> 3.x make 2.7 the worse version ever for beginners.
>
> Hmm. I was teaching on 2.7 up until last year, and fo
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> To my mind, the numerous duplications and overlaps in 2.7 that are gone in
> 3.x make 2.7 the worse version ever for beginners.
Hmm. I was teaching on 2.7 up until last year, and for the most part,
we taught a "compatible with Py3" subset of t
On 2/18/2016 2:27 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
There are more features in Python 3, so in that trivial sense of "more to
learn", I suppose that it is objectively correct that it is harder to learn
than Python 2. But I don't think the learning
In Python 3, I don't required to teach followings to newbies.
1. Don't do `class Foo:`, do `class Foo(object):`.
2. Don't do `isinstance(x, int)`, do `isinstance(x, (int, long))`.
3. Don't return non-ASCII string from `__repr__`, otherwise UnicodeError
happens in logging and you will lost your
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> There are more features in Python 3, so in that trivial sense of "more to
> learn", I suppose that it is objectively correct that it is harder to learn
> than Python 2. But I don't think the learning curve is any steeper. If
> anything, the
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016, at 01:47, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> There are more features in Python 3, so in that trivial sense of "more to
> learn", I suppose that it is objectively correct that it is harder to
> learn
> than Python 2. But I don't think the learning curve is any steeper. If
> anything,
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> I suppose that it is objectively correct that it is harder to learn
> than Python 2. But I don't think the learning curve is any steeper. If
> anything, the learning curve is ever-so-slightly less steep.
I think py3 has more learning curve because it uses iterators in pl
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> There are more features in Python 3, so in that trivial sense of "more to
> learn", I suppose that it is objectively correct that it is harder to learn
> than Python 2. But I don't think the learning curve is any steeper.
Set against the “more features in Python 3” is
On Wednesday 17 February 2016 19:51, Rustom Mody wrote:
> I hope someone can help me find this link: There is some record that Guido
> has said that python3 is probably a bit harder on noobs than python2.
>
> Does anyone know/have that link?
I can't say that I've seen it. I know that Raymond He
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 10:54:43 AM UTC+5:30, John Ladasky wrote:
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 6:02:24 PM UTC-8, Rick Johnson wrote:
> > I don't need Python3. And i reckon that by the time i do,
> > something more interesting will come along, or, i'll create
> > something more inter
23 matches
Mail list logo
