Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #6234 > unrolled thread

Re: Beginner needs advice

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Beginner needs advice "Colin J. Williams" <cjw@ncf.ca> - 2011-05-25 08:57 -0400
    Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 09:40 -0500
      Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-27 15:52 +0000
        Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 15:40 -0500
          Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 09:09 +1000
            Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 20:02 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-05-27 18:30 -0700
                Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-28 14:21 -0500
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 05:47 +1000
                    Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-28 21:02 -0500
                      Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 12:26 +1000
                      Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-29 14:09 +0000
                        Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 19:32 -0500
                          Re: Beginner needs advice "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 01:58 +0100
                            Re: Beginner needs advice Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-30 22:20 -0700
                              Re: Beginner needs advice Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-31 15:48 +1000
                                Re: Beginner needs advice MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-05-31 17:59 +0100
                                Re: Beginner needs advice Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-31 10:22 -0700
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-30 21:34 -0400
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-30 21:47 -0400
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-30 22:20 -0700
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2011-05-30 22:35 -0700
              Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-28 05:40 +0000
          Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-28 06:15 +0000
            Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-28 21:33 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 02:06 -0600
                Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 19:43 -0500
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 19:16 -0600
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 12:27 +1000
                    Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 22:02 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice Jason Tackaberry <tack@urandom.ca> - 2011-05-29 15:28 -0400
                Re: Beginner needs advice rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 16:00 -0700
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 09:31 +1000
                Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 19:44 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 15:15 -0700
              Re: Beginner needs advice Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 20:56 +0300
              Re: Beginner needs advice Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 12:29 -0600
              Re: Beginner needs advice Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 21:42 +0300
          Re: Beginner needs advice Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 08:46 +0300
        Re: Beginner needs advice Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2011-05-28 07:06 +0200
          Re: Beginner needs advice Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-28 08:38 +0200
            Re: Beginner needs advice Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-28 08:42 +0200
            Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 16:44 +1000
            Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-28 08:13 +0000
          Re: Beginner needs advice "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-28 08:38 -0400

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#6704

On Mon, 30 May 2011 21:34:09 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:

> On 5/30/2011 8:32 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
> 
> > Ever tried to read Beowulf in the original? Ever tried to write Ænglisc ?
> 
> I have, and it is a lot further from modern American than Python 2 and 3 
> are from each other.
>
	Heck... Python 2 and 3 are modern vs Shakespearian English...
Chaucer is closer to Python vs Ruby... Beowulf? Might as well be APL...
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6707

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Dennis Lee Bieber
<wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2011 21:34:09 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu>
> declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>
>> On 5/30/2011 8:32 PM, harrismh777 wrote:
>>
>> > Ever tried to read Beowulf in the original? Ever tried to write Ænglisc ?
>>
>> I have, and it is a lot further from modern American than Python 2 and 3
>> are from each other.
>>
>        Heck... Python 2 and 3 are modern vs Shakespearian English...
> Chaucer is closer to Python vs Ruby... Beowulf? Might as well be APL...
> --


No, Python 2 vs 3 is more of American English vs British English.
People who speak one of them work under the philosophy that "if y'all
would just speak English we wouldn't have these problems"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6452

On Fri, 27 May 2011 20:02:39 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:

> But the true picture is that 3.x is (way better) and completely
> incompatible with 2.x.   Lying about this isn't helpful to anyone coming
> on board with Python. Just tell them the truth...

Take your own advice and stop accusing others of lying when it is you 
spreading falsehoods about Python 3.

It is simply NOT TRUE that Python 3 is "completely incompatible" with 
Python 2. You keep making this accusation, but even the most cursory look 
at Python syntax, keywords, built-in objects, execution model, and 
standard library show that most things keep the same interface, and most 
of the remainder change in backward compatible ways.

There are some backwards incompatibilities, but nearly all of them can be 
resolved by an automated fixer, no human intelligence required.

Far from being "completely incompatible", the truth is that Python 2.7 
and 3.2 are more like 99% compatible. This is why there are 168 
identical .py files in the Python 2.7 and 3.2a standard libraries.

[steve@sylar ~]$ diff -rqbs --exclude="*.py[co]" /usr/local/lib/
python2.7/ /usr/local/lib/python3.2/ | grep identical | grep \\.py | wc -l
168


Calling Python 2 and Python 3 "different languages", as you have done, is 
simply wrong. Lisp and Python are different languages; Ruby and Python 
are different languages. Forth and Python are different languages. Python 
2 and 3 are not. They are the same language that share nearly everything 
in common but have a few significant differences.

Calling them "completely incompatible" is completely inaccurate.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6454

On Fri, 27 May 2011 15:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Would you care to revise your claims?
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> You have erected a straw-man... once again.

You keep using that term, but it is clear to me that you don't have the 
foggiest idea of what the straw-man fallacy is.

A straw man is not when somebody points out holes in your argument, or 
unwanted implications that you didn't realise were there. It is when 
somebody makes claims on your behalf that you did not make to discredit 
you, not because you don't understand the implications of your own 
argument.

You stated that Python 2 and Python 3 are COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE -- your 
words, not mine. You have repeated that claim, in this very post, and 
others, despite having been shown that they are not completely 
incompatible at all, that it is possible to write both forward and 
backward compatible code that works in every version of Python from 1.5 
through 3.2 inclusive.

Yes, it is true that you can also write code that works in 2.5 but not 
3.2, but so what? You can also write code that works in 2.5 but not 2.6:

    raise "some error"  # works in 2.5 and older

Or 2.4 and 2.5:

    True = 23  # works in 2.4 and older

or 2.3 and 2.4:

    None = 42  # works in 2.3 and older


Do you think that Python 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 are four completely 
different languages, and if not, why not?

Python 3 is not the first backwards incompatible version of Python.


[...]
> All of these things are for the better, I must add.  But, the point is
> that 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x in real ways.

And you've done it again, despite the fact that you can write compatible 
code that works in all versions of Python from 1.5 to 3.2, and easily 
write non-trivial code that works in 2.7 and 3.2. For larger projects, 
it's probably better to keep a separate 2.x and 3.x fork, but that's for 
convenience, nothing more: numpy, for example, supports 2 and 3 out of a 
single code base.

http://www.mail-archive.com/numpy-discussion%40scipy.org/msg26524.html


Perhaps you don't understand what "completely" means and are confusing it 
with "slightly".



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6512

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> A straw man is not when somebody points out holes in your argument, or
> unwanted implications that you didn't realise were there. It is when
> somebody makes claims on your behalf that you did not make to discredit
> you, not because you don't understand the implications of your own
> argument.

The straw-man fallacy is when you erect a "straw man" to "represent" the 
actual man (or idea) which can be easily knocked down, and then you 
proceed to knock it down (the straw-man) as though the "straw man" was 
the actual man, or idea... proving your point as-it-were against your 
opponent when in fact you have only just knocked down the straw-man... 
leaving the real man standing.

This fallacy has a couple of nuances (sometimes combined with metaphor 
or analogy fallacy) and you are a master at presenting both... 
thankfully you usually don't try to present both at the same time!  :)

In this present case the straw-man was not "me," rather the straw-man 
was the python language itself. You chose a code-snippet (one small puny 
dangle that doesn't prove a thing) and used it to speak for the entire 
language!  As though one code-block is enough to demonstrate 
compatibility for the entire language in all of its nuances and details. 
  To prove something positive with a test case requires that you provide 
*all* test cases, or that you provide an algorithm that accounts for 
*all* test cases... you cannot prove compatibility with a code-snippet.

On the other hand, all you have to do to prove incompatibility is to 
show "one" (1) test case where compatibility fails... and of course for 
the present case there are many that can be shown, in fact, hundreds of 
them.

The thing that nobody has presented here yet is that *all* the books 
declare that 3.x is incompatible with 2.x/   ... some of them go out of 
their way to tell the reader that they are only going to deal with 3.x 
and not 2.x in any way... and others go out of their way to point out 
the hundreds of nuances in details between the two languages. (and a 
good thing too, for those of us who must work with both! )  So this fact 
is not alluding the press... the point being not to bust anybody in the 
chops, but to point out that it is not helpful to move the community 
forward with a new language and get mass adoption (not just early 
adopters) to lie about the differences between the two sets... yes, for 
trivial code blocks that use prime constructs, integer math, and the 
print statement, not much has changed.  But in real world applications 
of the language there are many hundreds of details that have changed or 
been added (deleted) which will make life difficult for the uninitiated. 
Don't mislead people by saying that very little has changed.  Tell them 
that the philosophy is the same (what Chris called python 'think' ) but 
be honest about the details of syntax, environment, layout, and 
morphology.




kind regards,
m harris






kind regards,
m harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6517

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 8:33 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote:
> In this present case the straw-man was not "me," rather the straw-man was
> the python language itself. You chose a code-snippet (one small puny dangle
> that doesn't prove a thing) and used it to speak for the entire language!
>  As though one code-block is enough to demonstrate compatibility for the
> entire language in all of its nuances and details.  To prove something
> positive with a test case requires that you provide *all* test cases, or
> that you provide an algorithm that accounts for *all* test cases... you
> cannot prove compatibility with a code-snippet.

You have just misrepresented Steven's argument, which is rather ironic
considering that you're the one who brought up straw-men.  Steven did
not use one code snippet to demonstrate that Python 2 and Python 3 are
fully compatible.  The code snippet merely demonstrated that Python 2
and 3 are not "totally incompatible" as you had claimed.

I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
you tossed out as a joke.  I don't know whether you're sincere or
backpedaling, but in any case this assertion is flatly ludicrous.
Following your definition, *nothing* is compatible with anything else.
 If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
different things that are compatible.

And finally, would you please just knock off the fallacy crap?  If you
assert something, and another person counters with a straw-man, and
you respond by dismissing his argument as a straw-man, your response
is valid.  But if you assert something, and another person makes a
counter-argument, to whom you invariably respond by crying
"Straw-man!" or "False analogy!" (or in your case, "Analogy!"; you
seem to view all analogies as false) regardless of what that person
actually said -- even if that person does *sometimes* actually commit
those fallacies -- then you yourself are employing an ad hominem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6681

Ian Kelly wrote:
> You have just misrepresented Steven's argument, which is rather ironic
> considering that you're the one who brought up straw-men.  Steven did
> not use one code snippet to demonstrate that Python 2 and Python 3 are
> fully compatible.  The code snippet merely demonstrated that Python 2
> and 3 are not "totally incompatible" as you had claimed.

    Ian gets the Christmas turkey for pinning the irony on me fair 'n 
square...  'demonstrating' the straw-man is intimately and infinitely 
more delicious than just defining it... besides, the tables must be 
turned me thinks...    :)

>
> I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
> condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
> you tossed out as a joke.  I don't know whether you're sincere or
> backpedaling, but in any case this assertion is flatly ludicrous.
> Following your definition,*nothing*  is compatible with anything else.
>   If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
> different things that are compatible.

    one man, and one woman....

>
> And finally, . . . you
> seem to view all analogies as false) regardless of what that person
> actually said

    ... all analogies are argumentative fallacy. Now, the analogy event 
(or ontological state of the analogy) may in fact be true... but that 
event or state can *never* be used to assert truth in 'different event' 
or fact of 'another state' as the 'same thing(s)'.

    The truth or fallacy of an argument should never be asserted by the 
use of an analogy regardless how well the analogy illustrates the point. 
Some folks believe that a good illustration of a point can be used to 
prove the point true (or false), when in fact the illustration (the 
analogy event) is often nothing more than entertaining explanation 
(Steven's are some of the best, I admit !)

-- even if that person does*sometimes*  actually commit
> those fallacies -- then you yourself are employing an ad hominem.


    ... oh ho ho... lol   yes...   again...     guilty as charged.



kind regards,
m harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6689

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote:
>> I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
>> condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
>> you tossed out as a joke.  I don't know whether you're sincere or
>> backpedaling, but in any case this assertion is flatly ludicrous.
>> Following your definition,*nothing*  is compatible with anything else.
>>  If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
>> different things that are compatible.
>
>   one man, and one woman....

Now you're equivocating.  The discussion has been about whether Python
2 and Python 3 are compatible in the "interchangeable" sense, not in
the "capable of functioning together" sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6694

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:43 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote:
>>>  If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
>>> different things that are compatible.
>>
>>   one man, and one woman....
>
> Now you're equivocating.  The discussion has been about whether Python
> 2 and Python 3 are compatible in the "interchangeable" sense, not in
> the "capable of functioning together" sense.

Indeed. If a man has a scripting language, and a woman has a scripting
language, the two would differ because there are things each can do
that the other cannot. But there's a lot of things that both can do,
so the two languages would be highly similar in purpose and
functionality.

Hmm. If you did write those two scripting languages, we would finally
be able to type "man woman" to get docs on how to talk to women...

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6696

Chris Angelico wrote:
> Hmm. If you did write those two scripting languages, we would finally
> be able to type "man woman" to get docs on how to talk to women...

    Which just wouldn't be fair, because her use of  man man  would lead 
her no closer to understanding how men speak... (er, think, um... )


:)





>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6567

On 11-05-29 04:06 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
> condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
> you tossed out as a joke.

As a casual lurker reading this thread, I believe he is equating
"completely incompatible" with "not completely compatible."  At least,
his arguments make more sense if I read him as arguing from the "not
completely compatible" position.  It's possible he is intentionally
equivocating for dramatic effect.

But they are different -- both connotatively and denotatively -- and to
argue against the claim that Python 2 and 3 are "completely
incompatible" it seems to me sufficient to provide a single non-trivial
counter-example, which Steven has already done.

Cheers,
Jason.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6594

On May 29, 2:28 pm, Jason Tackaberry <t...@urandom.ca> wrote:
> On 11-05-29 04:06 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> > I realize you are now asserting that compatibility is a boolean
> > condition, and that "totally incompatible" is a redundant phrase that
> > you tossed out as a joke.
>
> As a casual lurker reading this thread, I believe he is equating
> "completely incompatible" with "not completely compatible."  At least,
> his arguments make more sense if I read him as arguing from the "not
> completely compatible" position.  It's possible he is intentionally
> equivocating for dramatic effect.
>
> But they are different -- both connotatively and denotatively -- and to
> argue against the claim that Python 2 and 3 are "completely
> incompatible" it seems to me sufficient to provide a single non-trivial
> counter-example, which Steven has already done.

Python 2.x and Pythin 3.x are two different dialects just like Humans
(Python 3.x) and Chimpanzees (Python 2.x) are similar (compatible) but
very different versions of talking apes (languages). Sure humans
(Python 3.x) and chimps (Python 2.x) share some similarities (much
more than say humans (Python3.x) and fish (Lisp) do) however there are
many incompatible differences.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6596

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM, rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Python 2.x and Pythin 3.x are two different dialects just like Humans
> (Python 3.x) and Chimpanzees (Python 2.x) are similar (compatible) but
> very different versions of talking apes (languages). Sure humans
> (Python 3.x) and chimps (Python 2.x) share some similarities (much
> more than say humans (Python3.x) and fish (Lisp) do) however there are
> many incompatible differences.
>

Chimpanzees do not use language in the same way that humans do, and in
any case, it's pretty ridiculous to talk of the 'Human language' in
anything other than a fantasy roleplaying game. It's more comparable
to call Py2 "scientific English"and Py3 "medical English". There are
differences (what's a calorie?), but for the most part, they are the
same language.

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6682

Jason Tackaberry wrote:
> At least,
> his arguments make more sense if I read him as arguing from the "not
> completely compatible" position.  It's possible he is intentionally
> equivocating for dramatic effect.


    yes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6587

On May 28, 9:33 pm, harrismh777 <harrismh...@charter.net> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > A straw man is not when somebody points out holes in your argument, or
> > unwanted implications that you didn't realise were there. It is when
> > somebody makes claims on your behalf that you did not make to discredit
> > you, not because you don't understand the implications of your own
> > argument.
>
> The straw-man fallacy is when you erect a "straw man" to "represent" the
> actual man (or idea) which can be easily knocked down, and then you
> proceed to knock it down (the straw-man) as though the "straw man" was
> the actual man, or idea... proving your point as-it-were against your
> opponent when in fact you have only just knocked down the straw-man...
> leaving the real man standing.
>
> This fallacy has a couple of nuances (sometimes combined with metaphor
> or analogy fallacy) and you are a master at presenting both...
> thankfully you usually don't try to present both at the same time!  :)
>
> In this present case the straw-man was not "me," rather the straw-man
> was the python language itself. You chose a code-snippet (one small puny
> dangle that doesn't prove a thing) and used it to speak for the entire
> language!  As though one code-block is enough to demonstrate
> compatibility for the entire language in all of its nuances and details.
>   To prove something positive with a test case requires that you provide
> *all* test cases, or that you provide an algorithm that accounts for
> *all* test cases... you cannot prove compatibility with a code-snippet.
>
> On the other hand, all you have to do to prove incompatibility is to
> show "one" (1) test case where compatibility fails... and of course for
> the present case there are many that can be shown, in fact, hundreds of
> them.
>
> The thing that nobody has presented here yet is that *all* the books
> declare that 3.x is incompatible with 2.x/   ... some of them go out of
> their way to tell the reader that they are only going to deal with 3.x
> and not 2.x in any way... and others go out of their way to point out
> the hundreds of nuances in details between the two languages. (and a
> good thing too, for those of us who must work with both! )  So this fact
> is not alluding the press... the point being not to bust anybody in the
> chops, but to point out that it is not helpful to move the community
> forward with a new language and get mass adoption (not just early
> adopters) to lie about the differences between the two sets... yes, for
> trivial code blocks that use prime constructs, integer math, and the
> print statement, not much has changed.  But in real world applications
> of the language there are many hundreds of details that have changed or
> been added (deleted) which will make life difficult for the uninitiated.
> Don't mislead people by saying that very little has changed.  Tell them
> that the philosophy is the same (what Chris called python 'think' ) but
> be honest about the details of syntax, environment, layout, and
> morphology.


Bravo!

PS: And yes, Steven is a master at the straw man fallacy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6749

>  If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
> different things that are compatible.
>

Men and women.
MS Office and Open Office.
IE6 and HTML.

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6750

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
>> different things that are compatible.
>>
>
> Men and women.

This is a slightly different sense of the word compatible than we have
been discussing: able to work together to perform a function, not
interchangeable.

> MS Office and Open Office.

Nope.  Remember, the assertion by harrismh777 was that "all you have
to do to prove incompatibility is to show 'one' (1) test case where
compatibility fails".  As one example, any Calc document that uses the
EASTERSUNDAY function will fail in Excel, since Excel does not provide
it.  I could easily come up with other examples (let's not even get
into the differences in macros), but one is all I need.

> IE6 and HTML.

:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6751

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 21:29, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  If you disagree, then I invite you to list one example of two
>>> different things that are compatible.
>>>
>>
>> Men and women.
>
> This is a slightly different sense of the word compatible than we have
> been discussing: able to work together to perform a function, not
> interchangeable.
>
>> MS Office and Open Office.
>
> Nope.  Remember, the assertion by harrismh777 was that "all you have
> to do to prove incompatibility is to show 'one' (1) test case where
> compatibility fails".  As one example, any Calc document that uses the
> EASTERSUNDAY function will fail in Excel, since Excel does not provide
> it.  I could easily come up with other examples (let's not even get
> into the differences in macros), but one is all I need.
>
>> IE6 and HTML.
>
> :-)
>

Ian, I'm surprised, you of all people might have noticed that my
sarcasm was intended to point out exactly that no two things are
compatible, least of all those things designed with compatibility as a
design spec!

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6513

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 23:40, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote:
> You have erected a straw-man... once again.
>

I think that is a red herring, not a strawman.

> Most 2.x code *will not* run correctly in 3.x/  Most of the best
> improvements and enhancements of 3.x will not back-port to below 2.7, and
> almost none of them will back-port before 2.6 (class decorations, for
> instance).
>

Although it is true that 2.x code will not run in a 3.x environment,
the changes to the code are minimal. This would be akin to saying that
a 2008 Peugeot 407 will not drive on a Canadian road because the
license plate is a different shape. Just go an put a different plastic
license plate holder on the Peugeot and it will run fine on the
Canadian road. The changes to bring Python 2 code into Python 3 code
are minimal, and it would be a terrific learning experience for the OP
to go back and revise his old code to do just that.

Furthermore, the OP is not just learning Python for the fun of
learning Python. If that were the case, then I would agree that Python
3 is the way to go. The OP needs to use imaging libraries which may
not yet work in Python 3 (I have not checked, but it is very likely
that they do not). Therefore Python 3 is a non-starter in any case.

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6449

Am 27.05.2011 17:52 schrieb Steven D'Aprano:
> On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:
>
>> 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x (some call it a dialect,
>> but that is a lie).
>
> "Completely incompatible"? A "lie"?

Hard word, but it is true. Many things can and will fall on your feet 
when moving.

There are very many subtle differences.


> import math
> import random
> my_list = [3, 5, 7, 9]
> n = random.choice(my_list)
> if n%3:
>      func = math.sin
> else:
>      func = math.cos
>
> y = func(math.pi/n)*10
> L = ['spam']*(int(y))
> for item in L:
>      print(item)
>
>
> is valid syntax in every version of Python from 1.5 to 3.2, and it does
> the same thing in all of them.

C and C++ guys complain if these languages are intermixed. Even there it 
is possible to write a program which is valid in both of them. 
Nevertheless, they are two different languages.

So are Py2 and Py3, IMHO.


Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web