Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:49:39 -0400, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >"Ron_Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Python has one obvious best way to do things. > > >More exactly, 'should preferably have' rather than 'has'. > >> Meaning that the most obvious a

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Frank Wilde wrote: Continuations rule! While continuations are a very interesting abstraction, the improvement of structured programming was to be able to prove properties of your programs in time linear to the size of the program instead of quadratic. I don't see how giving arg

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

"Ron_Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Python has one obvious best way to do things. More exactly, 'should preferably have' rather than 'has'. > > Meaning that the most obvious and clearest way, the way that comes to > mind first, will in most cases, also be the

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

"François Pinard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >To summarize, instead of saying "Python has only one way to do it", As I explained in response to Aahz, what Tim Peters wrote was that Python 'should preferably have only one obvious way to do it'. Omission of the

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

"Aahz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Sure, of course. Yet, our friendly argument is sliding away from was it >>originally was. The point was about not asserting in this forum that >>Python "has only one way to do it", because this is not true anymore. >> >>The princ

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[Aahz] >> >> I'll agree that Python currently has many examples of more than one >> way to do things (and even Python 3.0 won't remove every example >> [...]). But I won't agree that Only One Way has bee

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Ulrich Hobelmann wrote: > alex goldman wrote: >> I personally think GOTO was unduly criticized by Dijkstra. With the >> benefit of hindsight, we can see that giving up GOTO in favor of >> other primitives failed to solve the decades-old software crisis. > The fault of goto in imperative languages

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Steve Holden wrote: Not at all - we just apply the same division techniques to the buffer space until we can map the pieces of cake one-to-one onto the buffers. That technique can be applied to layer cakes, but not all real cakes. Michael -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Robin Becker wrote: Greg Ewing wrote: Scott David Daniels wrote: Aahz wrote: You just can't have your cake and eat it, too. I've always wondered about this turn of phrase. I seldom eat a cake at one sitting. You need to recursively subdivide the cake until you have a piece small enough to fit in

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Greg Ewing wrote: Scott David Daniels wrote: Aahz wrote: You just can't have your cake and eat it, too. I've always wondered about this turn of phrase. I seldom eat a cake at one sitting. You need to recursively subdivide the cake until you have a piece small enough to fit in your input buffer.

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On 7 Apr 2005 11:11:31 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: >You're conflating two different things: > >* Whether Python currently has only one way to do things > >* Whether Python has a design goal of only one way to do things > >I'll agree that Python currently has many examples of more than o

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

[Aahz] > I'll agree that Python currently has many examples of more than one > way to do things (and even Python 3.0 won't remove every example > [...]). But I won't agree that Only One Way has been abandoned as a > design principle. To summarize, instead of saying "Python has only one way to do

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On Apr 7, 2005 1:15 AM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott David Daniels wrote: > > Aahz wrote: > > > >> You just can't have your cake and eat it, too. > > > > I've always wondered about this turn of phrase. I seldom > > eat a cake at one sitting. > > You need to recursively subdivide

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[Aahz] >> [François] >>> >>>Many of us are using Python today, week after week, year long. So >>>let's be pragmatic. Python is what it became and now is. Let's not >>>define it as a memory from the pa

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Scott David Daniels wrote: Aahz wrote: You just can't have your cake and eat it, too. I've always wondered about this turn of phrase. I seldom eat a cake at one sitting. You need to recursively subdivide the cake until you have a piece small enough to fit in your input buffer. Then the atomicity o

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Simon Brunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Apr 6, 2005 4:42 PM, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've always wondered about this turn of phrase. I seldom > > eat a cake at one sitting. > > Clearly you're just not trying. ;-) :-))) John -- http://mail.python.org/mailma

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On Apr 6, 2005 4:42 PM, Scott David Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've always wondered about this turn of phrase. I seldom > eat a cake at one sitting. Clearly you're just not trying. ;-) -- Cheers, Simon B, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.brunningonline.net/simon/blog/ -- http://mail.pyt

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Aahz wrote: You just can't have your cake and eat it, too. I've always wondered about this turn of phrase. I seldom eat a cake at one sitting. -Scott David Daniels [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

[Aahz] > [François] > >Many of us are using Python today, week after week, year long. So > >let's be pragmatic. Python is what it became and now is. Let's not > >define it as a memory from the past nor as a futuristic dream. > You're free to continue using 1.5.2. [...] Sure, of course. Yet

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Hi All-- Aahz wrote: > Given the tension of the various > requirements, I think that Python has broken "only one way" as little as > possible, with the full intention of getting closer to its ideal when the > time comes to break backward compatibility. > I wrote my mayalib package under 1.3.0.

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[Aahz] >> =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been >>>abandoned a few years ago. My honest feeling is that it woul

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

T.D. Lassagne wrote: Please consider joining the International Sarcasm Society. Our motto is "Like We Need YOUR Support". I *recognize* sarcasm; I just don't think it's very funny. Now parody, which this turned out to be, I can appreciate. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says... > Artie Gold wrote: > > Torsten Bronger wrote: > >> The whole text seems to be a variant of > >> . > >> > >> Tschö, > >> Torsten. > >> > > Ya think? ;-) > > Heh. I was glad that Tor

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Artie Gold wrote: Torsten Bronger wrote: The whole text seems to be a variant of . TschÃ, Torsten. Ya think? ;-) Heh. I was glad that Torsten pointed it out; I didn't get what was funny about the joke until then. -- http://mail.python.org/ma

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Artie Gold wrote: > Torsten Bronger wrote: >> Hallöchen! >> >> Daniel Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>>Shriram Krishnamurthi has just announced the following elsewhere; it >>>might be of interest to c.l.s, c.l.f, and c.l.p: >>>http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2005-April/0

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Torsten Bronger wrote: HallÃchen! Daniel Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Shriram Krishnamurthi has just announced the following elsewhere; it might be of interest to c.l.s, c.l.f, and c.l.p: http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2005-April/008382.html The Fate Of LAMBDA in

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:40:15 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The danger in GOTO is that it allows the undisciplined programmer to >develop a badly-structured solution to a programming problem. A >disciplined programmer will write well-structured code with whatever >tools come

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

alex goldman wrote: Daniel Silva wrote: At any rate, FOLD must fold. I personally think GOTO was unduly criticized by Dijkstra. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that giving up GOTO in favor of other primitives failed to solve the decades-old software crisis. What software crisis? Knuth (

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Aahz wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Sunnan] [...] for Pythons ideal of having one canonical, explicit way to program. No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been abandoned a few years ago. My honest feeling is th

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

[Aahz] > =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been > >abandoned a few years ago. My honest feeling is that it would be a > >mis-representation of Python, assertng today that this is still one > >of the Python's ide

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On 1 Apr 2005 20:00:13 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>[Sunnan] >>> >>> [...] for Pythons ideal of having one canonical, explicit way to >>> program. >> >>No doubt it once was true, but I gues

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Daniel Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > So now FOLD. This is actually the one we've always hated most, > because, apart from a few examples involving + or *, almost every time > we see a FOLD call with a non-trivial function argument, we have to > grab pen and paper and imagine the *res

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Pinard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[Sunnan] >> >> [...] for Pythons ideal of having one canonical, explicit way to >> program. > >No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been abandoned a >few years ago. > >My honest feeling

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

alex goldman wrote: Daniel Silva wrote: At any rate, FOLD must fold. I personally think GOTO was unduly criticized by Dijkstra. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that giving up GOTO in favor of other primitives failed to solve the decades-old software crisis. The fault of goto in imperati

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Jeremy Bowers wrote: Yes and no. In the Python community, we're taking all of that pretty seriously. The scheme community may not seriously be thinking of getting rid of those things, but it's hardly impossible that some people think it might be better off without it. Lambda is a primitive in Schem

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:30:42 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote: > >> Daniel Silva wrote: >> >>> Shriram Krishnamurthi has just announced the following elsewhere; it might >>> be of interest to c.l.s, c.l.f, and c.l.p: >>> http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

[Sunnan] > [...] for Pythons ideal of having one canonical, explicit way to > program. No doubt it once was true, but I guess this ideal has been abandoned a few years ago. My honest feeling is that it would be a mis-representation of Python, assertng today that this is still one of the Python's

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:30:42 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote: > Daniel Silva wrote: > >> Shriram Krishnamurthi has just announced the following elsewhere; it might >> be of interest to c.l.s, c.l.f, and c.l.p: >> http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2005-April/008382.html > > April Fool's

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

The Fate Of LAMBDA in PLT Scheme v300 or Lambda the Ultimate Design Flaw Why drop LAMBDA? Why not? Isn't all code eventually anonymous and relocatable? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

HallÃchen! Daniel Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Shriram Krishnamurthi has just announced the following elsewhere; it might > be of interest to c.l.s, c.l.f, and c.l.p: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2005-April/008382.html > > > The Fate Of LAMBDA in PLT Sche

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Daniel Silva wrote: We think dropping FILTER and MAP is pretty uncontroversial; (filter P S) is almost always written clearer as a DO loop (plus the LAMBDA is slower than the loop). Even more so for (map F S). In all cases, writing the equivalent imperative program is clearly beneficial. How abou

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Daniel Silva wrote: > At any rate, FOLD must fold. I personally think GOTO was unduly criticized by Dijkstra. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that giving up GOTO in favor of other primitives failed to solve the decades-old software crisis. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pyt

Re: Lambda: the Ultimate Design Flaw

Daniel Silva wrote: Shriram Krishnamurthi has just announced the following elsewhere; it might be of interest to c.l.s, c.l.f, and c.l.p: http://list.cs.brown.edu/pipermail/plt-scheme/2005-April/008382.html April Fool's Day again, eh? -- Erik Max Francis && [EMAIL PROTECTED] && http://www.alcyone.c