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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #6001 > unrolled thread

Re: Abandoning Python

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

Contents

  Re: Abandoning Python Ed Keith <e_d_k@yahoo.com> - 2011-05-22 13:01 -0700
    Re: Abandoning Python Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-05-23 13:11 +1200
      Re: Abandoning Python Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-23 06:33 +0000
        Re: Abandoning Python Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 16:49 +1000
        Re: Abandoning Python Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-05-24 12:04 +1200
          Re: Abandoning Python rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 17:21 -0700

#6001 — Re: Abandoning Python

Have you looked at Falcon (http://www.falconpl.org/)? It seems to have a lot of what you are looking for. I do not have much experience with it but I like what I've seen so far, except that there are not any third party tools or libraries libraries. Which is where Python shines.

   -EdK

Ed Keith
e_d_k@yahoo.com

Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6031

Ed Keith wrote:
> Have you looked at Falcon (http://www.falconpl.org/)?

This paragraph on the first page doesn't exactly fire
me with enthuiasm:

> Falcon provides six integrated programming paradigms: procedural, object
> oriented, prototype oriented, functional, tabular and message oriented. And you
> don't have to master all of them;

...until you want to read someone *else's* code, that is.

-- 
Greg

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

#6040

On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:11:40 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:

> Ed Keith wrote:
>> Have you looked at Falcon (http://www.falconpl.org/)?
> 
> This paragraph on the first page doesn't exactly fire me with enthuiasm:
> 
>> Falcon provides six integrated programming paradigms: procedural,
>> object oriented, prototype oriented, functional, tabular and message
>> oriented. And you don't have to master all of them;
> 
> ...until you want to read someone *else's* code, that is.


The same might be said about Python, which supports procedural, OO and 
functional styles out of the box. Prototype-oriented is so close to OO 
that you can fake it in Python:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4629224/prototypal-programming-in-python

I'm not sure what they mean by tabular, perhaps something like Resolver 
System's Python-in-a-spreadsheet?

http://www.resolversystems.com/products/resolver-one/


And presumably anyone who has played around with GUI programming in 
Python will have run into message oriented coding.



-- 
Steven

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

#6045

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> And presumably anyone who has played around with GUI programming in
> Python will have run into message oriented coding.
>

GUI code almost always involves a main loop somewhere that consists of:

while not time_to_terminate:
 get_message()
 dispatch_message()

Voila, you've just implemented message-oriented code in an imperative
way. Doesn't make the language inherently message-oriented. If you're
going to read someone else's code, then, you not only need to know the
language, you need to know the environment in which it runs. I found
that out the hard way when I tried to read some PHP code that was
designed to run inside Joomla - it's quite quite different from
standalone PHP.

<tongue location="cheek">I believe assembly language offers as many
paradigms as anything else you might want. With judicious use of
constructs like the Intel "JMP [BP+SI]" and a nice table of jump
targets, you could do message passing, OOP/inheritance, procedures,
and next-programmer-brain-destruction, and hey, it's tabular
too!</tongue>

Chris Angelico

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

#6103

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 13:11:40 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
>
>>...until you want to read someone *else's* code, that is.
>
> The same might be said about Python, which supports procedural, OO and 
> functional styles out of the box.

But it only uses *one* syntax and core set of concepts to
cover all of those. Unlike, apparently, Falcon... take a
look at this page concerning how Falcon approaches functional
programming (but don't look for too long or your eyes may
begin to bleed...)

http://falconpl.org/index.ftd?page_id=sitewiki&prj_id=_falcon_site&sid=wiki&pwid=Survival%20Guide&wid=Survival%3AFunctional+programming

Falcon seems to collect programming paradigms the way Perl
collects language features, i.e. by just munging them all
together and bending parts until they fit.

-- 
Greg

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

#6106

On May 23, 7:04 pm, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> Falcon seems to collect programming paradigms the way Perl
> collects language features, i.e. by just munging them all
> together and bending parts until they fit.

Not that i am picking on anyone here...

but...

Why is okay to rip apart Perl with jagged metal teeth (and not that i
am complaining mind you) however if anyone even hints about Ruby being
somewhat ...oh let's say "asinine" or how about "redundant"...  all
the Ruby trolls crawl out the woodwork and start bashing you in the
head with a recursive iterator? Do they not understand that Ruby is
nothing more than Perl's "mini-me" bent on displacing the glory of
Python with Perl style obfuscation, squiggly variable decorators, and
redundant syntaxes so horrific that even Tim Toady would blush in
embarrassment?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web