On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
From: "geremy condra"
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
Would it be hard to introduce the possibility of adding encryption of the
bytecode similar to what the Zend encoder does for PHP or Filter::Crypto for
Perl?
Octa
Tim Harig, 18.01.2011 12:37:
On 2011-01-18, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 20:41:
I prefer a single language as opposed to a creolization of two.
With the possible exception of Lisp, I find it hard to think of a language
that's still alive and not the creolisation of (at least) tw
From: "geremy condra"
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>> From: "Stefan Behnel"
>>>
>>> Octavian Rasnita, 19.01.2011 07:10:
aren't the Pyton bytecode-compiled files considered secure enough?
Can they be easily decompiled?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>>
>
On 20 January 2011 06:16, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-01-19, geremy condra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Octavian Rasnita
> wrote:
>
> >> Would it be hard to introduce the possibility of adding encryption of
> the
> >> bytecode similar to what the Zend encoder does for PHP or F
On 2011-01-19, geremy condra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
>> Would it be hard to introduce the possibility of adding encryption of the
>> bytecode similar to what the Zend encoder does for PHP or Filter::Crypto for
>> Perl?
>
> The iron law of cryptography: t
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Octavian Rasnita wrote:
> From: "Stefan Behnel"
>>
>> Octavian Rasnita, 19.01.2011 07:10:
>>>
>>> aren't the Pyton bytecode-compiled files considered secure enough?
>>> Can they be easily decompiled?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>
>
> Would it be hard to introduce t
Octavian Rasnita, 19.01.2011 11:31:
From: "Stefan Behnel"
Octavian Rasnita, 19.01.2011 07:10:
aren't the Pyton bytecode-compiled files considered secure enough?
Can they be easily decompiled?
Yes.
FYI, just take a look at the 'dis' module. There are also decompilers
available. IIRC, one is
From: "Stefan Behnel"
Octavian Rasnita, 19.01.2011 07:10:
aren't the Pyton bytecode-compiled files considered secure enough?
Can they be easily decompiled?
Yes.
Stefan
Would it be hard to introduce the possibility of adding encryption of the
bytecode similar to what the Zend encoder doe
Octavian Rasnita, 19.01.2011 07:10:
aren't the Pyton bytecode-compiled files considered secure enough?
Can they be easily decompiled?
Yes.
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
From: "Tim Harig"
On 2011-01-18, Terry Reedy wrote:
On 1/18/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
Whether or not you actually agree with that economic reality is
irrelevant. Those who fund commerical projects do; and, any
developement
tool which violates the security of the source is going to f
Anyone have thoughts on Cobra?
On Jan 18, 2011 4:20 PM, "Zach" wrote:
> Cobra seems to similar to python. Or it at least compares itself to
python.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Cobra seems to similar to python. Or it at least compares itself to python.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2011-01-18, geremy condra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>> Even assuming that PyPy does actually manage to reach within a magnitude
>> of C with the extra effort required to leverage two languages, why
>> would I bother when I can do it with one? PyPy and similar
On 2011-01-18, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/18/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>
>> Whether or not you actually agree with that economic reality is
>> irrelevant. Those who fund commerical projects do; and, any developement
>> tool which violates the security of the source is going to find itself
>>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
> Even assuming that PyPy does actually manage to reach within a magnitude
> of C with the extra effort required to leverage two languages, why
> would I bother when I can do it with one? PyPy and similar methods
> where great when there was no o
On 2011-01-18, geremy condra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Tim Harig wrote:
>> I really question that you get Java anywhere even close to C performance.
>> Google reports they get within the same order of magnitude as C for
>> their long-lived server processes where the JIT has had ti
On 1/18/2011 10:30 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
Whether or not you actually agree with that economic reality is
irrelevant. Those who fund commerical projects do; and, any developement
tool which violates the security of the source is going to find itself
climbing an uphill battle in trying to gain mar
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Tim Harig wrote:
>> Go is not an ideal language for high-performance code. Despite the
>> occasional claims of others, Go is consistently outperformed by C,
>> C++, and Java on a wide variety of benchmarks. Some claim that Ada and
>> Haskell do as well, and my ben
On 2011-01-18, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Tim Harig wrote:
>
>> You still don't see many
>> companies doing large scale internal development using Python and you
>> definately don't see any doing external developement using a language
>> that gives the customers full access to the source code.
>
> What y
Tim Harig wrote:
> You still don't see many
> companies doing large scale internal development using Python and you
> definately don't see any doing external developement using a language
> that gives the customers full access to the source code.
What you refered as "full access to the source cod
On 2011-01-18, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 20:41:
>> One of the arguments for Python has always made is that you can optimize
>> it by writing the most important parts in C. Perhaps that is a crutch
>> that has held the communty back from seeking higher performance solutions
>> i
On 2011-01-18, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:41:54 +, Tim Harig wrote:
>
>> One of the arguments for Python has always made is that you can optimize
>> it by writing the most important parts in C. Perhaps that is a crutch
>> that has held the communty back from seeking highe
Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 20:41:
In comp.lang.python, I wrote:
Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 13:25:
If I didn't think Python was a good language, I wouldn't be here.
Nevertheless, it isn't a good fit for many pieces of software where a
systems language is better suited. Reasons include ease of distributio
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 19:41:54 +, Tim Harig wrote:
> One of the arguments for Python has always made is that you can optimize
> it by writing the most important parts in C. Perhaps that is a crutch
> that has held the communty back from seeking higher performance
> solutions in the language its
On 2011-01-17, geremy condra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tim Harig wrote:
>> On 2011-01-17, geremy condra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
On 2011-01-16, geremy condra wrote:
>> Go is every bit of a general purpose programming language. It is use
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Tim Harig wrote:
> On 2011-01-17, geremy condra wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-16, geremy condra wrote:
>>> I wouldn't say Go is narrowly targeted. It's a systems language that can
>>> compete in the same domain with
On 2011-01-17, John Nagle wrote:
> That's been done once or twice. There's what are called "single
> assignment languages". Each variable can only be assigned once.
> The result looks like an imperative language but works like a functional
> language. Look up "SISAL" for an example. This
On 2011-01-17, geremy condra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>> On 2011-01-16, geremy condra wrote:
>> I wouldn't say Go is narrowly targeted. It's a systems language that can
>> compete in the same domain with scripting languages. It is true that most
>> languages h
On 1/17/2011 1:34 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
On 2011-01-17, Paul Rubin wrote:
geremy condra writes:
Which is rather interesting because the OOP community had
traditionally though of functional programming as a 1960's thing that
didn't work out.
Right.
The big problem with functional p
In comp.lang.python, you wrote:
> Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 13:25:
>> If I didn't think Python was a good language, I wouldn't be here.
>> Nevertheless, it isn't a good fit for many pieces of software where a
>> systems language is better suited. Reasons include ease of distribution
>> without an inte
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
> On 2011-01-16, geremy condra wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
language "where programmers c
On 17/01/2011 16:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Sherm Pendley, 17.01.2011 16:47:
I believe the widespread use of some functional techniques in JavaScript
had a lot to do with that as well.
I doubt that there's really "widespread use" of functional techniques in
JavaScript. Such code may be widely de
Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 13:25:
If I didn't think Python was a good language, I wouldn't be here.
Nevertheless, it isn't a good fit for many pieces of software where a
systems language is better suited. Reasons include ease of distribution
without an interpeter, non-necessity of distributing source
Sherm Pendley, 17.01.2011 16:47:
I believe the widespread use of some functional techniques in JavaScript
had a lot to do with that as well.
I doubt that there's really "widespread use" of functional techniques in
JavaScript. Such code may be widely deployed, but that doesn't tell
anything ab
Tim Harig writes:
> Functional programming has been around a long time; but, it only regained
> conciousness outside of academia because of its hyped abilities to
> make threading easier.
I believe the widespread use of some functional techniques in JavaScript
had a lot to do with that as well.
On 2011-01-17, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>> On 2011-01-16, geremy condra wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>
Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
gap between ease of use dynamic la
On 2011-01-17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:12:04 +, Tim Harig wrote:
>
>> Python has been widely used by people like us that happen to like the
>> language and found ways to use it in our workplaces; but, most of the
>> time it is an unofficial use that the company. You st
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
> On 2011-01-16, geremy condra wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>>> Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
>>> gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
>>> distri
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:12:04 +, Tim Harig wrote:
> Python has been widely used by people like us that happen to like the
> language and found ways to use it in our workplaces; but, most of the
> time it is an unofficial use that the company. You still don't see many
> companies doing large sc
Tim Harig schrieb:
[snip]
This isn't such a tragedy Erlang as it is for other managed VMs because
Erlang/BEAM makes powerful usage of its VM for fault tolerance mechanisms. I
don't know of any other VM that allows software upgrades on a running system.
styx, the distributed operating system i
On 2011-01-17, Paul Rubin wrote:
> geremy condra writes:
>> I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
>> made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
>> language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
>> lack of exceptions,
On 2011-01-16, geremy condra wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
>> On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
>>> language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
>>> fooling himself
geremy condra writes:
> I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
> made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
> language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
> lack of exceptions, etc
> You might be right, but I dou
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig wrote:
> On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
>> language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
>> fooling himself.
>
> No I wouldn't say that it has reached
On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:47:35 +, Tim Harig wrote:
>
>> One of the things that gives me hope
>> for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
>> rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
>> Eweek's 18 top
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:47:35 +, Tim Harig wrote:
> One of the things that gives me hope
> for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
> rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
> Eweek's 18 top languages for 2011.
If the author thinks tha
46 matches
Mail list logo
