On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 12:39:37 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> > Long story short: the lambda
> > calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
> > These models of computation should not use the same language. The
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
> You're very right. But that is what has made it sort of a test-bed
> for internet collaboration. The project I'm working on is aimed to
> solve that problem and take the Wiki philosophy to its next or even
> ultimate level. By adding a "n
Impressive, I'd say.
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Sounds a lot like reddit threads.
>
> It's similar, but it goes a lot further. Where every other site
> without centralized editors, the thread mess on a simple flat page
> doesn't scale after about a 100 interactions.
> Sounds a lot like reddit threads.
It's similar, but it goes a lot further. Where every other site
without centralized editors, the thread mess on a simple flat page
doesn't scale after about a 100 interactions. To sort out the mess,
it takes another dimension. The project I'm working on uses
Sounds a lot like reddit threads.
On 13 May 2013 08:17, "Mark Janssen" wrote:
> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ned Batchelder
> wrote:
> > I've never understood why people use that site: the pages end up being
> > unintelligible cocktail-party noise-scapes with no hope of understanding
> who
On 12 May 2013 18:23, "Ned Batchelder" wrote:
>
> I've never understood why people use that site: the pages end up being
unintelligible cocktail-party noise-scapes with no hope of understanding
who is saying what, or in response to whom.
>
> --Ned.
There's not so much noise there, but indeed the
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> I've never understood why people use that site: the pages end up being
> unintelligible cocktail-party noise-scapes with no hope of understanding who
> is saying what, or in response to whom.
You're very right. But that is what has made i
On 5/12/2013 1:18 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:39 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
...The field needs re-invented and re-centered.[...]
For anyone who want to be involved. See the wikiwikiweb -- a tool
that every programmer should know and use -- and these pages:
ComputerScienceVersionTwo
On 5/8/2013 10:39 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
...The field needs re-invented and re-centered.[...]
For anyone who want to be involved. See the wikiwikiweb -- a tool
that every programmer should know and use -- and these pages:
ComputerScienceVersionTwo and ObjectOrientedRefactored.
I've never un
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
>> wrote:
>
>
>>>The coordinates of each particle storing the information in that
>>> teaspoon of matter.
>>
>>
>> Which is probably more data than any o
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>>>
>>> I also believe in a path of endless
>>> exponential growth. Challenge: Create more information than can be
>>> stored in one teaspoon of matter. Go ahead. Try!
>
>
> If that's your argument, then you don't re
Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
The coordinates of each particle storing the information in that
teaspoon of matter.
Which is probably more data than any of us will keyboard in a
lifetime. Hence my point.
My 1TB hard disk *already* co
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
I also believe in a path of endless
exponential growth. Challenge: Create more information than can be
stored in one teaspoon of matter. Go ahead. Try!
If that's your argument, then you don't really believe
in *endless* exponential growth. You only believe in
"exponenti
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber
wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:33:52 +1000, Chris Angelico
> declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>
>>
>> I don't answer to them. I also believe in a path of endless
>> exponential growth. Challenge: Create more information than
On 10 May, 13:07, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Now, whether or not it's worth _debating_ the expressiveness of a
> language... well, that's another point entirely. But for your major
> project, I think you'll do better working in Python than in machine
> code.
I wasn't disagreeing with the concept of
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> All this irrelevant nonsense
> about Turing machines and lambda calculus that you've injected into
> the conversation though just reminds me of the "Einstein was wrong"
> cranks.
http://xkcd.com/1206/
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/l
> ...The field needs re-invented and re-centered.[...]
For anyone who want to be involved. See the wikiwikiweb -- a tool
that every programmer should know and use -- and these pages:
ComputerScienceVersionTwo and ObjectOrientedRefactored.
Cheers!
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
http://mail.pyt
On Thu, 9 May 2013 11:33:45 -0600
Ian Kelly wrote:
> about Turing machines and lambda calculus that you've injected into
> the conversation though just reminds me of the "Einstein was wrong"
> cranks.
But Einstein *was* wrong. http://www.xkcd.com/1206/
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy
On May 10, 2013, at 7:49 AM, William Ray Wing wrote:
> On May 10, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>> In article ,
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> The first hard disk I ever worked with stored 20MB in the space of a
>>> 5.25" slot (plus its associated ISA controller card).
>>
>> Heh. T
On May 10, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> The first hard disk I ever worked with stored 20MB in the space of a
>> 5.25" slot (plus its associated ISA controller card).
>
> Heh. The first hard disk I ever worked with stored 2.4 MB in 6U of rack
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> The first hard disk I ever worked with stored 20MB in the space of a
>> 5.25" slot (plus its associated ISA controller card).
>
> Heh. The first hard disk I ever worked with stored 2.4 MB in 6U of rack
In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
> The first hard disk I ever worked with stored 20MB in the space of a
> 5.25" slot (plus its associated ISA controller card).
Heh. The first hard disk I ever worked with stored 2.4 MB in 6U of rack
space (plus 4 Unibus cards worth of controller). That's no
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:58 PM, alex23 wrote:
>> On 10 May, 07:51, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> You see Ian, while you and the other millions of coding practitioners
>>> have (mal)adapted to a suboptimal coding environment where "hey
>>> there's
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:58 PM, alex23 wrote:
> On 10 May, 07:51, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> You see Ian, while you and the other millions of coding practitioners
>> have (mal)adapted to a suboptimal coding environment where "hey
>> there's a language for everyone" and terms are thrown around,
>> mi
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM, alex23 wrote:
> On 10 May, 07:51, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Languages can reach for an optimal design (within a
>> constant margin of leeway). Language "expressivity" can be measured.
>
> I'm sure that's great. I, however, have a major project going live in
> a few
On 10 May, 07:51, Mark Janssen wrote:
> You see Ian, while you and the other millions of coding practitioners
> have (mal)adapted to a suboptimal coding environment where "hey
> there's a language for everyone" and terms are thrown around,
> misused, this is not how it needs or should be.
Please
On 10 May, 03:33, Ian Kelly wrote:
> You've been posting on this
> topic for going on two months now, and I still have no idea of what
> the point of it all is.
As Charlie Brooker put it: "almost every monologue consists of nothing
but the words PLEASE AUTHENTICATE MY EXISTENCE, repeated over and
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Mark Janssen
> wrote:
>> the community stays fractured.
>
> The open source community seems pretty healthy to me. What is the
> basis of your claim that it is "fractured"?
The carpentry community is fractured.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mark Janssen
>> wrote:
>>> Okay, to anyone who might be listening, I found the core of the problem.
>>
>> What "problem" are you referring to? You've been
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mark Janssen
> wrote:
>> Okay, to anyone who might be listening, I found the core of the problem.
>
> What "problem" are you referring to? You've been posting on this
> topic for going on two months now, and I s
>> These models of computation should not use the same language. Their
>> computation models are too radically different.
>
> Their computation models are exactly equivalent.
No they are not. While one can find levels of indirection to
translate between one and the other, that doesn't mean they
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Okay, to anyone who might be listening, I found the core of the problem.
What "problem" are you referring to? You've been posting on this
topic for going on two months now, and I still have no idea of what
the point of it all is. I recall so
On May 9, 10:39 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> > Long story short: the lambda
> > calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
> > These models of computation should not use the same language. Their
> > computation models are
On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Long story short: the lambda
> calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
> These models of computation should not use the same language. Their
> computation models are too radically different.
Their computation models
> "Lisp will remain the pinnacle of lambda calculus" ??? : Surreal
> feeling of falling into a 25-year time-warp
>
> Read this http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.pdf
>
> Just for historical context:
> When this was written in the 80s:
> - The FP languages of the time -- KRC
On May 9, 7:35 am, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Mark Janssen
>
> wrote:
> >> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes
> >> an
> >> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
> >> Python now, or is even remote
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
>> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
>> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
>> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Python in the
>> future.
>
On 04/13/2013 12:28 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
>> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
>> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Python in the
>> future.
>
> Wow, you
On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
>> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
>> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Python in the
>> future.
>
>
> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Python in the
> future.
Wow, you guys are a bunch of ninnies. I'm going to find som
On 4/11/2013 9:57 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Okay peeps, I'm re-opening this thread, because despite being hijacked
by naysayers, the merit of the underlying idea I think still has not
been communicated or perceived adequately.
Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it
propo
On 12/04/2013 02:57, Mark Janssen wrote:
[dross snipped]
A summary here http://pinterest.com/pin/464293042804330899/
--
If you're using GoogleCrap™ please read this
http://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython.
Mark Lawrence
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
> Further, I will admit that I am not deeply
> experienced in application or Internet programming
Would you listen to someone who is, by his own admission, not
experienced as a surgeon, and tries to tell you that your liver and
heart would be
On Apr 12, 11:57 am, Mark Janssen wrote:
> hijacked by naysayers
Says the man who wrote:
- "I blame the feminists for being too loyal to atheism and G-d for
being too loyal to the Jews. Torture happened."
- "The world is insane because people loved snakes more than G-d, and
believed in homose
On 04/11/2013 06:57 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
[blah blah not python blah blah]
Mark, this list if for Python, about Python, helping with Python.
If you want to discuss whatever this idea is, you should do it somewhere else,
as it is *not* Python.
--
~Ethan~
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/list
Okay peeps, I'm re-opening this thread, because despite being hijacked
by naysayers, the merit of the underlying idea I think still has not
been communicated or perceived adequately. As a personal request from
the BDFL, which I begrudge him for, I've removed the thread from
python-ideas. If you w
On Mar 20, 2:24 pm, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Yes, that's the point I'm making, and it's significant because other
> programmers can't see other's mental models.
How does having API-less magic objects make this any better? I pass a
string message to your RSS object: does it create XML from it? does i
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Hopefully this won't be considered mail spam, but another quora answer that
> gets to the idea I'm after: http://qr.ae/TMh7A
>
> Reposted here for those who don't have accounts:
>
> Q. Is it time for us to dump the OOP paradigm? If yes, what
Hopefully this won't be considered mail spam, but another quora answer that
gets to the idea I'm after: http://qr.ae/TMh7A
Reposted here for those who don't have accounts:
Q. Is it time for us to dump the OOP paradigm? If yes, what can replace it?
When I was using C++ and Java, more of my time
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/18/2013 11:31 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>
>> The idea that message passing is fundamentally different from method
>> calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it
>> only took a couple years to prove that they are theo
On 3/18/2013 11:31 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
The idea that message passing is fundamentally different from method
calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it
only took a couple years to prove that they are theoretically
completely isomorphic—and,
Since the isomorphism is
From: Mark Janssen
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:41 PM
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert
> wrote:
>> Have you even looked at a message-passing language?
>>
>> A Smalltalk "message" is a selector and a sequence of arguments.
> That's what you send around. Newer dynamic-typ
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> Have you even looked at a message-passing language?
>
> A Smalltalk "message" is a selector and a sequence of arguments. That's what
> you send around. Newer dynamic-typed message-passing OO and actor languages
> are basically the same as
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen:
>>> Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
>>> be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen:
>> Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
>> be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a
>> standard way to define the *next* common abstraction of
8 Dihedral writes:
> zipher於 2013年3月19日星期二UTC+8上午1時04分36秒寫道：
>> the key conceptual shift is that by enforcing a syntax that moves
>> away from invoking methods and move to message passing between
>> objects, you're automatically enforcing a more modular approach.
>
> Please check object pasca
> You're dreaming of a utopia where computers just read our minds and
> know what we're thinking. So what if I can pass 42 into an object.
> What do I intend to happen with that 42? Do I want to add the element
> to a list? Access the 42nd element? Delete the 42nd element? Let the
> object pick a b
zipher於 2013年3月19日星期二UTC+8上午1時04分36秒寫道：
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > I am very interested in this as a concept, although I must admit I'm not
>
> > entirely sure what you mean by it. I've read your comment on the link above,
>
> > and subsequent emails in thi
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
>> Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Mark Janssen
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hello,
I just posted an answers on quora.com about OOP (http://qr.ae/TM1Vb)
and wanted to engage the python community on the subje
> Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Mark Janssen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I just posted an answers on quora.com about OOP (http://qr.ae/TM1Vb)
>>> and wanted to engage the python community on the subject.
>
>
> My answer to that question would be that it *did*
> ca
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I am very interested in this as a concept, although I must admit I'm not
> entirely sure what you mean by it. I've read your comment on the link above,
> and subsequent emails in this thread, and I'm afraid I don't understand what
> you me
So, by introducing this collaboration mechanism with a syntax that defines it
as sending and receiving things that are *not* arbitrary objects, the language
would naturally reinforce a more thoroughly decoupled architecture?
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On 2013-03-18, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Alan Kay's idea of message-passing in Smalltalk are interesting, and
> like the questioner says, never took off. My answer was that Alan
> Kay's abstraction of "Everything is an object" fails because you can't
> have message-passing, an I/O task, working in th
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
> be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a
> standard way to define the *next* common abstraction of "every object
> interacts with other objects".
Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a
standard way to define the *next* common abstraction of "every object
interacts with other objects". And going with my suggestion of
defining >> and << operators,
65 matches
Mail list logo
