On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:05 PM, sal migondis wrote:
>> I believe...
>
> Shifting from 'belief' to 'believe', the latter having a considerably
> wider semantic scope.
Wider how? Would you care to give an example of something that is
believed but is not a belief?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman
On Jul 6, 7:45 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> sal migondis wrote:
> > How could a belief be wrong?
> I believe...
Shifting from 'belief' to 'believe', the latter having a considerably
wider semantic scope.
After that, anything goes.. naturally.
> you are a small glass of beer. Are you *actually
Dennis Lee Bieber writes:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:01:57 -0500, Andrew Berg
> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>
> > On 2011.07.05 01:14 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> > > How could a belief be wrong?
> > Beliefs aren't subjective. One's taste in music, for example, is
> > lar
* 2011-07-06T06:41:52-07:00 * wrote:
> I am using a user defined spec as an argument to the cmp function.
> That spec then modifies the body of the compare function and creates a
> user defined control structure. You can argue all day that it is not a
> user defined control structure but no one i
On Jul 6, 9:55 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> rantingrick wrote:
> > ---
> > THIS CODE RESULTS IN A CONTROL STRUCTURE!
>
> > --> lst.sort(lambda x,y: cmp(x[1], y[1]))
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> How does it change the program flow? You call the sort method, it sort
On 2011-07-06, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, rantingrick
> wrote:
>> Give it up man and admit i am correct and you are wrong.
>
> Sorry. A Lawful Good character cannot tell a lie.
Lawful Good characters have a hard time coexisting with the
Chaotic Neutrals.
--
Neil C
rantingrick wrote:
> On Jul 6, 6:44 am, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
>> A control structure is a structure which controls the program flow.
>> Control structures include:
>>
>> * jumps (goto, gosub, comefrom, exceptions, break, continue)
>>
>> * loops (for, while, re
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> Give it up man and admit i am correct and you are wrong.
>
Sorry. A Lawful Good character cannot tell a lie.
ChrisA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jul 6, 6:44 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> A control structure is a structure which controls the program flow. Control
> structures include:
>
> * jumps (goto, gosub, comefrom, exceptions, break, continue)
>
> * loops (for, while, repeat...until)
>
> * conditional branches (if, case/switch)
---
rantingrick wrote:
>> Define "best for all", and try not to make it "what Rick wants".
>
> You want features? And remember i am talking about scripting/glue
> level languages here. Something to replace Python, Ruby, Perl,
> JavaScript, etc, etc not some "pie-in-the-sky", "single-answer-to-all-
>
sal migondis wrote:
> How could a belief be wrong?
I believe you are a small glass of beer. Are you *actually* a small glass of
beer in reality? If so, my belief is right. If you are a human being, then
my belief is wrong.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
rantingrick wrote:
> On Jul 5, 11:04 am, Corey Richardson wrote:
>
>> How is giving the sort method a function by which to determine the
>> relative value of objects a control structure? Do you know what a control
>> structure is? It's something that you use to modify control flow:
>>
>> if foo
rantingrick wrote:
Something to replace Python, Ruby, Perl,
JavaScript, etc, etc not some "pie-in-the-sky", "single-answer-to-all-
our-problems" pipe dream language.
So it's just a "single-answer-to-all-our-glue-programming"
pipe dream language, then? :-)
--
Greg
--
http://mail.python.org/mai
rantingrick wrote:
I was thinking more about this comment and it occurred to me that
Python does have user controlled data structures. Just because there
is no "top level syntax" like ruby does not mean these do not exists.
Syntax is what it's really about, though. There's no clear
dividing li
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:31:02 +1000, Chris Angelico
> declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>> Democracy DOES NOT WORK. Plain and simple. You cannot build a
>> programming language democratically.
>>
> Uhm... COBOL an
On 2011.07.06 12:26 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 16:01:57 -0500, Andrew Berg
> declaimed the following in
> gmane.comp.python.general:
>
> > On 2011.07.05 01:14 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> > > How could a belief be wrong?
> > Beliefs aren't subjective. One's taste in music, fo
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2011.07.05 09:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
> > Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
> > won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2011.07.05 09:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
>> Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
>> won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount to
On 2011.07.05 09:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
> Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
> won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount to admitting both
> that Unix is superior to Windows, AND t
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:07 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jul 4, 6:24 pm, Steven D'Aprano +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> Define "best for all", and try not to make it "what Rick wants".
>
> You want features? And remember i am talking about scripting/glue
> level languages here. Someth
On Jul 4, 6:24 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> rantingrick wrote:
> Some people want to make Python more dynamic. Some want it to be less
> dynamic. Some care about integrating it with Java or .Net, some don't care
> about either. Some are interested in clever optimization tricks, some
> oppose addi
On 07/05/2011 05:35 PM, rantingrick wrote:
One thing is for sure, i always get a giggle from your self
defeating posts. You're the best enemy a person could have.
Thank you. *bows*
Every time I see a rantingrick post, it's like watching the Black
Knight scene from the Holy Grail yet again. Yo
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:35 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> You're the
> best enemy a person could have. Thank you. *bows*
Compliments are made to be returned, and this one is particularly well
suited. *bow*
Chris Angelico
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jul 5, 11:04 am, Corey Richardson wrote:
> How is giving the sort method a function by which to determine the relative
> value of objects a control structure? Do you know what a control structure is?
> It's something that you use to modify control flow:
>
> if foo <= bar:
> foo += 1
>
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:14 AM, sal migondis wrote:
> On Jul 4, 10:31 pm, alex23 wrote:
>> rantingrick wrote:
>> > What do you think will be the eventual outcome of the human existence
>> > Alex? Since you have no imagination i will tell you, a singular
>> > intelligence.
>
> All from the land o
On 2011.07.05 01:14 PM, sal migondis wrote:
> How could a belief be wrong?
Beliefs aren't subjective. One's taste in music, for example, is
largely subjective and can't be right or wrong, but a belief (which has
to do with facts) certainly can be.
> > > What do you think will be the eventual outco
On Jul 4, 10:31 pm, alex23 wrote:
> rantingrick wrote:
> > I believe (unlike most people) that nature is striving for perfection
>
> Your belief is wrong. "Nature" doesn't "strive" for _anything_. Things
> in the world are either fit enough to continue their existence or not.
> As circumstances c
Excerpts from rantingrick's message of Tue Jul 05 07:42:39 -0400 2011:
>
> I was thinking more about this comment and it occurred to me that
> Python does have user controlled data structures. Just because there
> is no "top level syntax" like ruby does not mean these do not exists.
> You only have
On Jul 4, 2:36 am, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> We have different languages because different people have different
> ideas about what a language should be like. Ruby people like user
> defined control structures; Python people regard user defined
> control structures as an anti-feature. It's fundament
rantingrick wrote:
> I believe (unlike most people) that nature is striving for perfection
Your belief is wrong. "Nature" doesn't "strive" for _anything_. Things
in the world are either fit enough to continue their existence or not.
As circumstances change, some things that were once suitably fit
rantingrick wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:06 am, alex23 wrote:
>> rantingrick wrote:
>> > But why must we have
>> > completely different languages just for that those two approaches?
>>
>> Because monocultures die.
>
> That's an interesting statement Alex (even though you parrot it
> constantly). So wh
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:35 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> I believe (unlike most people) that nature is striving for perfection
> NOT for diversity. Diversity is just a byproduct of feeble attempts to
> GUESS the correct answer. Here is a thought exercise for the advanced
> reader...Which is more effic
On Jul 4, 12:06 am, alex23 wrote:
> rantingrick wrote:
> > But why must we have
> > completely different languages just for that those two approaches?
>
> Because monocultures die.
That's an interesting statement Alex (even though you parrot it
constantly). So what IS a mono culture exactly? Lem
rantingrick wrote:
I agree however i see merit in both approaches. But why must we have
completely different languages just for that those two approaches?
We have different languages because different people have different
ideas about what a language should be like. Ruby people like user
defin
rantingrick wrote:
> But why must we have
> completely different languages just for that those two approaches?
Because monocultures die.
Because having broader diversity leads to more evolutionary leaps.
Because the implementations are so fundamentally different.
Because the people who ACTUALL
rantingrick wrote:
> Turned my otherwise beautiful code into an Orwellian nightmare.
Your code was spying on you, having your friends and family disappear during
the night to be tortured, and having history re-written so that there was
no longer any evidence that they ever existed?
You have my s
On Jul 2, 11:00 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> rantingrick wrote:
> > Ruby: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
> > Python: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
>
> Here you're making the mistake of thinking that surface syntax
> is all that matters. Although the 'for' statements in Python and
> Ruby look very sim
On Jul 2, 10:57 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> The place where this "Unity API" idea of yours falls down
> is that an API is only truly easy to use when it's designed
> to closely match the characteristics of the language it's
> being used from.
>
> For example, Python has a very powerful feature that
On Jul 2, 10:14 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I specced up "the perfect language" a while ago. It gave you a clean
> slate with no facilities but one: Define Operator. [...]
That was some great satire :) but the last thing we need is users with
that much power. Take the example of Ruby allowing you
Chris Angelico wrote:
Your proposed "Unity API" (which I assume has nothing to do with Natty
Narwhal's preferred interface) already exists. It's the C language.
Or maybe GObject Introspection is closer to what you
have in mind?
A library that supports GI advertises enough information
about it
rantingrick wrote:
Ruby: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
Python: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
Here you're making the mistake of thinking that surface syntax
is all that matters. Although the 'for' statements in Python and
Ruby look very similar, underneath they're based on quite
different mecha
The place where this "Unity API" idea of yours falls down
is that an API is only truly easy to use when it's designed
to closely match the characteristics of the language it's
being used from.
For example, Python has a very powerful feature that most
other languages don't have anything remotely l
rantingrick wrote:
> Hello fellow programmers, scripters, hackers, and debutantes.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 12:24 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> Why do you constantly propagate multiplicity? Why do you feel that we
> need 100 or so languages when about three would cover everything? Sure
> people are free to create whatever Frankenstein language they want in
> the confines of their hobby
On Jul 2, 8:49 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:43 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> > I mean what is the point of having two languages with the exact same
> > syntax?
>
> > Ruby: print 'blah'
> > Python: print 'blah'
>
> > Ruby: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
> > Python: for x in blah
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> Adding a new API is seldom the way to decrease the number of API's.
> At least, not without -=very=- centralized control over which API's
> get used.
>
> I actually rather like it that no language has achieved the
> dominance today that C o
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:43 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> I mean what is the point of having two languages with the exact same
> syntax?
>
> Ruby: print 'blah'
> Python: print 'blah'
>
> Ruby: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
> Python: for x in blah: blah_blah_blah
>
> WHAT?
>
What's the point of having
On Jul 2, 8:12 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Any universal protocol will suffer either from complexity or
> narrowness - some suffer from both. If every API has to go through
> this Unity API, then either Unity will be as powerful and complex as C
> with all its libraries, or it'll overly restrict
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:58 AM, rantingrick wrote:
>
> Take Pidgin[1] as an example. Pidgin is a universal chat client. It's
> a glue between the many chat clients that exist... It's a monkey patch
> for chat multiplicity but you get the idea. However the Unity API
> cannot be a monkey patch. It
On 07/02/2011 06:46 PM, rantingrick wrote:
On Jul 2, 6:38 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
It saddens me when i see API's that don't include at least three
language choices. No *one* language is going to please the masses.
C or C++ bindings will cover most languages.
This is pretty much the entire
Take Pidgin[1] as an example. Pidgin is a universal chat client. It's
a glue between the many chat clients that exist... It's a monkey patch
for chat multiplicity but you get the idea. However the Unity API
cannot be a monkey patch. It must be a mutual undertaking from the
beginning. Don't you peo
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:21 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jul 2, 6:38 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...]
> > It takes work to suit your API to a different language. Let's take GNU
> > Aspell as an example; [...] Should the Aspell team offer bindings for
> every
> > known language? In your post, you
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:21 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> No. Aspell should offer bindings for THE "Unity API" and the
> respective "abstraction communities" are then responsible for
> maintaining a plugin for their "abstraction" into THE Unity API.
>
Your proposed "Unity API" (which I assume has not
On Jul 2, 6:38 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
[...]
> It takes work to suit your API to a different language. Let's take GNU
> Aspell as an example; [...] Should the Aspell team offer bindings for every
> known language? In your post, you recommend supporting a minimum of
> three. Which three? Why?
No
On Jul 2, 6:38 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
[... snip expositions...]
> C or C++ bindings will cover most languages.
>
> Chris Angelico
This is pretty much the entire argument, everything else is
exposition.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
I know I shouldn't get sucked into responding to a rant, but it's like
a black hole - it's inevitable you'll cross the horizon...
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:59 AM, rantingrick wrote:
> It saddens me when i see API's that don't include at least three
> language choices. No *one* language is going to
Hello fellow programmers, scripters, hackers, and debutantes.
I have cross posted this thread to three groups that i believe need to
unite under the flag of unity for the benefit of all. Because when we
unite we not only help ourselves, we promote freedom. In the next few
paragraphs i will expose
57 matches
Mail list logo
