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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #18011 > unrolled thread

Re: Python education survey

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: Python education survey Carl Smith <carl.input@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 21:59 -0800
    Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 03:41 -0800
      Re: Python education survey Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 04:53 +1100
        Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:45 -0800
          Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 12:04 -0800
            Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 13:44 -0800
              Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 17:56 -0800
                Re: Python education survey Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-12-27 20:21 -0600
                  Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 18:42 -0800
                    Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 14:54 +1100
                    Re: Python education survey Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-12-28 06:59 +0000
                      Re: Python education survey rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 23:49 -0800
                      Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-31 16:27 +0000
                        Re: Python education survey Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-12-31 13:23 -0500
                          Re: Python education survey Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> - 2011-12-31 20:06 +0100
                            Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-01 02:36 +0000
                              Re: Python education survey Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> - 2012-01-01 05:53 +0100
                                Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:02 +0000
                          Re: Python education survey Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 23:44 -0600
                    Re: Python education survey Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> - 2011-12-31 21:12 -0800
                      Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 21:27 -0800
                        Re: Python education survey Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> - 2012-01-02 22:03 -0800
                        Re: Python education survey Evan Driscoll <edriscoll@wisc.edu> - 2012-01-03 01:31 -0500
                        Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 04:33 -0800
                          Re: Python education survey Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-04 01:30 +0000
                    Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 16:50 +1100
                Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 04:25 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#18011 — Re: Python education survey

On Dec 20, 10:58 am, Andrea Crotti <andrea.crott...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/20/2011 03:51 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do you use IDLE when teaching Python?
> > If not, what is the tool of choice?
>
> > Students may not be experienced with the command-line and may be
> > running Windows, Linux, or Macs.  Ideally, the tool or IDE will be
> > easy to install and configure (startup directory, path, associated
> > with a particular version of Python etc).
>
> > Though an Emacs user myself, I've been teaching with IDLE because it's
> > free; it runs on multiple OSes, it has tooltips and code colorization
> > and easy indent/dedent/comment/uncomment commands, it has tab
> > completion; it allows easy editing at the interactive prompt; it has
> > an easy run-script command (F5); it has direct access to source code
> > (File OpenModule) and a class browser (Cntl+B).
>
> > On the downside, some python distros aren't built with the requisite
> > Tcl/Tk support; some distros like the Mac OS ship with a broken Tcl/Tk
> > so users have to install a fix to that as well; and IDLE sometimes
> > just freezes for no reason.  It also doesn't have an easy way to
> > specify the startup directory.
>
> > If your goal is to quickly get new users up and running in Python,
> > what IDE or editor do you recommend?
>
> > Raymond
>
> I think ipython and a good editor gives a much nicer experience
> than IDLE, which I actually almost never used, and
> for everything else there is python and python-mode.
>
> New users however can be pointed to something like PyCharm
> or Eclipse+PyDev if they are more familiar to IDEs..

I agree; IPython is a excellent choice. You have a much more powerful
interactive Python experience, with all the features you need from an
IDE. You can use any editor (VIM) and you can also readily hack
IPython to death.

I think the fact that anyone with basic programming skills can
substantially enhance their console is a big winner in CS education.
It gives students something they personally value to work on, it's a
place to store all their little bits of code and actually benefit from
them in real life.

I've never met a programmer that got familiar with IPython and then
went on to stop using it. It should be included in the standard
library and used as the default Python interactive environment.

The last line of my .bashrc file:

ipython3

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#18022

On Dec 27, 6:59 am, Carl Smith <carl.in...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 10:58 am, Andrea Crotti <andrea.crott...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/20/2011 03:51 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
> > > Do you use IDLE when teaching Python?
> > > If not, what is the tool of choice?
>
> > > Students may not be experienced with the command-line and may be
> > > running Windows, Linux, or Macs.  Ideally, the tool or IDE will be
> > > easy to install and configure (startup directory, path, associated
> > > with a particular version of Python etc).
>
> > > Though an Emacs user myself, I've been teaching with IDLE because it's
> > > free; it runs on multiple OSes, it has tooltips and code colorization
> > > and easy indent/dedent/comment/uncomment commands, it has tab
> > > completion; it allows easy editing at the interactive prompt; it has
> > > an easy run-script command (F5); it has direct access to source code
> > > (File OpenModule) and a class browser (Cntl+B).
>
> > > On the downside, some python distros aren't built with the requisite
> > > Tcl/Tk support; some distros like the Mac OS ship with a broken Tcl/Tk
> > > so users have to install a fix to that as well; and IDLE sometimes
> > > just freezes for no reason.  It also doesn't have an easy way to
> > > specify the startup directory.
>
> > > If your goal is to quickly get new users up and running in Python,
> > > what IDE or editor do you recommend?
>
> > > Raymond
>
> > I think ipython and a good editor gives a much nicer experience
> > than IDLE, which I actually almost never used, and
> > for everything else there is python and python-mode.
>
> > New users however can be pointed to something like PyCharm
> > or Eclipse+PyDev if they are more familiar to IDEs..
>
> I agree; IPython is a excellent choice. You have a much more powerful
> interactive Python experience, with all the features you need from an
> IDE. You can use any editor (VIM) and you can also readily hack
> IPython to death.
>
> I think the fact that anyone with basic programming skills can
> substantially enhance their console is a big winner in CS education.
> It gives students something they personally value to work on, it's a
> place to store all their little bits of code and actually benefit from
> them in real life.
>
> I've never met a programmer that got familiar with IPython and then
> went on to stop using it. It should be included in the standard
> library and used as the default Python interactive environment.
>
> The last line of my .bashrc file:
>
> ipython3

Youve got one here. I like IPython a lot, but it quite rarely enters
into my workflow.

While I agree that a good interactive python console is a good way to
get your feet wet with programming, I also strongly feel that a more
comprehensive programming environment should be introduced to
students. That includes opening and editing files, syntax
highlighting, and code completion. And painless installation. There
are no lightweight editors that provide all this functionality in
conjuction with Ipython*. So I prefer to work the other way around;
use something like pycharm, and open an IPython interactive session
within it.

*Your suggestion of VIM is especially objectionable. Though I am sure
it is a great tool to you, the subject here is beginner education.
Just because it is a good tool for you, does not make it a good tool
for a beginner.

IPython bundled with a lightweight but function-rich and non-hacker-
but-WYSIWYG editor would be a great choice. But until that comes
around, pycharm it is for me.

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

#18034

On 12/27/2011 10:41 PM, Eelco wrote:
>
> *Your suggestion of VIM is especially objectionable. Though I am sure
> it is a great tool to you, the subject here is beginner education.
> Just because it is a good tool for you, does not make it a good tool
> for a beginner.

Before using VIM, I used to use gedit (and still do, though not as often 
now); I don't think I've ever had any problem with not using a full 
blown IDE with Python. I generally don't miss not using an IDE since 
Python doesn't have the tradition of using overly verbose names like in 
Java.

I'm personally of the opinion that beginners generally should start with 
a simple programmer text editors (gedit is a good example). Firstly, you 
don't want to confuse beginners with IDE vs language features; secondly, 
at the size of the problem beginners typically had, they don't **need** 
95% of those features; and if you teach beginners powerful IDE features 
too early, by the time their problem gets big enough that the IDE 
features would actually help, they'd already forgotten about them.

> IPython bundled with a lightweight but function-rich and non-hacker-
> but-WYSIWYG editor would be a great choice. But until that comes
> around, pycharm it is for me.

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

#18047

On Dec 27, 6:53 pm, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 10:41 PM, Eelco wrote:
>
>
>
> > *Your suggestion of VIM is especially objectionable. Though I am sure
> > it is a great tool to you, the subject here is beginner education.
> > Just because it is a good tool for you, does not make it a good tool
> > for a beginner.
>
> Before using VIM, I used to use gedit (and still do, though not as often
> now); I don't think I've ever had any problem with not using a full
> blown IDE with Python. I generally don't miss not using an IDE since
> Python doesn't have the tradition of using overly verbose names like in
> Java.

As for my personal use, I very much prefer an IDE. I hate having only
crappy code completion, for starters, and I like a good integrated
debugger. But then again, im spoiled I suppose coming from C#. On the
other hand, ive worked for many years using a very minimal notepad
+command line compilation setup as well.

But I can very well imagine that people are perfectly happy with more
hackerish tools. That is, once they have gotten past the learning
curve.

> I'm personally of the opinion that beginners generally should start with
> a simple programmer text editors (gedit is a good example). Firstly, you
> don't want to confuse beginners with IDE vs language features; secondly,
> at the size of the problem beginners typically had, they don't **need**
> 95% of those features; and if you teach beginners powerful IDE features
> too early, by the time their problem gets big enough that the IDE
> features would actually help, they'd already forgotten about them.

A good IDE should get out of your way if you want it to. I like
pycharm in this regard; click an x or two, and you are facing just
your text editor and console/output window.

Generally, I think a non-cluttered IDE is ideal for a beginner. You
dont have to explain to them how to open a file, and if you tell them
to hit the 'play' button to start running their code (not a hard
concept to grasp or remember either) they are good to start hacking.
Also, I think code completion is a blessing to beginning programmers.
IPython is good in that regard; until you switch to editing files,
where your choice is between notepad, or configuring an other editor
you dont want your class to spend any time on, and youll end up with
something that still doesnt do much more than syntax highlighting.

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

#18048

On Dec 27, 1:45 pm, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 6:53 pm, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/27/2011 10:41 PM, Eelco wrote:

> > Before using VIM, I used to use gedit

Eelco, please don't get offended, but can you (and everyone else) stop
using silly verbage like "used to", "use to", "suppose to", "hard"
when you "difficult", and "pretty" when you mean "very". I find this
verbiage to be quite ridiculous. In this case you could have simply
said...

"""Before using VIM, I USED gedit."""

or if you want to stress that you don't use gedit anymore you could
say...

""" Previously i used gedit, but have since moved on to VIM."""

Thanks

> As for my personal use, I very much prefer an IDE. I hate having only
> crappy code completion

Syntax highlight is important ESPECIALLY if you're multi-lingual.
Sometimes when i switch between the many languages i know, the
highlight of the syntax is the only blindingly apparent clue. Take
Python and Ruby for example.

> A good IDE should get out of your way if you want it to. I like
> pycharm in this regard; click an x or two, and you are facing just
> your text editor and console/output window.

A "good IDE" is nothing more than an extension of a base text editor
with options to switch on as little or as much IDE machinery as you
like. Why would you have a text editor AND an IDE? When an IDE is just
an intelligent texteditor? That is one thing that i find missing in
IDLE; the ability to turn off certain things. With IDLE, it's all or
nothing.

> Generally, I think a non-cluttered IDE is ideal for a beginner.

Agreed, see last response ^^^

> You
> dont have to explain to them how to open a file, and if you tell them
> to hit the 'play' button to start running their code (not a hard
> concept to grasp or remember either) they are good to start hacking.

I always though "run" was a perfect verb for "running" code... but who
knows :)

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

#18066

On Dec 27, 9:04 pm, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 1:45 pm, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 6:53 pm, Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 12/27/2011 10:41 PM, Eelco wrote:
> > > Before using VIM, I used to use gedit
>
> Eelco, please don't get offended, but can you (and everyone else) stop
> using silly verbage like "used to", "use to", "suppose to", "hard"
> when you "difficult", and "pretty" when you mean "very". I find this
> verbiage to be quite ridiculous. In this case you could have simply
> said...
>
> """Before using VIM, I USED gedit."""
>
> or if you want to stress that you don't use gedit anymore you could
> say...
>
> """ Previously i used gedit, but have since moved on to VIM."""
>
> Thanks

Despite the fact that you mis-attributed that quote to me, im going to
be a little bit offended in the name of its actual author anyway.
Thats a lot of words to waste on your linguistic preferences.
Personally, I reserve the right to botch my non-native languages as
much as I please.

> > You
> > dont have to explain to them how to open a file, and if you tell them
> > to hit the 'play' button to start running their code (not a hard
> > concept to grasp or remember either) they are good to start hacking.
>
> I always though "run" was a perfect verb for "running" code... but who
> knows :)

Im assuming the audience is familiar with an ipod, but not an IDE, or
programming in general. To their eyes, it looks like a 'play' button;
but yes, 'running' is what its called in my mind.

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

#18084

On Dec 27, 3:44 pm, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Despite the fact that you mis-attributed that quote to me, im going to
> be a little bit offended in the name of its actual author anyway.
> Thats a lot of words to waste on your linguistic preferences.
> Personally, I reserve the right to botch my non-native languages as
> much as I please.

I hope you're just joking a bit because i have little respect for
those who refuse to better themselves. If you are learning English as
a second language then you have a legitimacy excuse, but at some point
that excuse just becomes a lie. In any case, i apologize for mis-
quoting you.

> > I always though "run" was a perfect verb for "running" code... but who
> > knows :)
>
> Im assuming the audience is familiar with an ipod, but not an IDE, or
> programming in general. To their eyes, it looks like a 'play' button;

I would be very careful about introducing new words, or borrowing
words, to replace tried and true technical terms that have existed for
along time. As a matter of fact, the BDFL make the point better than i
ever could:

GvR speaking about ABC's design: """ The ABC group assumed that the
users had no prior computer experience (or were willing to forget it).
Thus, alternative terminology was introduced that was considered more
"newbie-friendly" than standard programming terms. For example:
procedures were called "how-tos" and variables "locations". """

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

#18086

On 12/27/11 19:56, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Dec 27, 3:44 pm, Eelco<hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Despite the fact that you mis-attributed that quote to me,
>> im going to be a little bit offended in the name of its
>> actual author anyway. Thats a lot of words to waste on your
>> linguistic preferences. Personally, I reserve the right to
>> botch my non-native languages as much as I please.
>
> I hope you're just joking a bit because i have little respect
> for those who refuse to better themselves. If you are learning
> English as a second language then you have a legitimacy
> excuse, but at some point that excuse just becomes a lie.

I'm glad you're open to learning more about English as "used to" 
is perfectly acceptable according to the World English Dictionary[1]

"""
2.  	(takes an infinitive or implied infinitive) used as an 
auxiliary to express habitual or accustomed actions, states, etc, 
taking place in the past but not continuing into the present: I 
don't drink these days, but I used to; I used to fish here every day
"""

May you be found better for learning and come to give others the 
benefit of the doubt.

-tkc

[1]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/used%20to

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

#18089

On Dec 27, 8:21 pm, Tim Chase <python.l...@tim.thechases.com> wrote:

> I'm glad you're open to learning more about English as "used to"
> is perfectly acceptable according to the World English Dictionary[1]
> [...]
> May you be found better for learning and come to give others the
> benefit of the doubt.

I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world" dictionary.
I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony baloney
group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that writing a
dictionary "might be cool". I am against these words and phrases
because we already have words that work just fine. Why rock the boat?

Why would you use a word like "hard" (which describes the physical
properties of a tangible object),  to describe how "difficult" a task
may be? If you insist on this lunacy, then why not use "soft" to
describe how easy a task may be? Seems ridiculous now, huh?

Garbage Verbiage Translator:
 Used to -> previously|before
 Supposed to -> required|expected
 Use to -> accustomed|acquainted
 Right (OOC) -> Correct
 Hard (OOC) -> Difficult
 Pretty (OOC) -> very

This is group has the most dumbest smart people i have ever met!

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

#18093

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world" dictionary.
> I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony baloney
> group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that writing a
> dictionary "might be cool".

Finally we know who Ranting Rick is the alt of. He's Humpty Dumpty!

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Through_the_Looking-Glass,_and_What_Alice_Found_There/Chapter_VI

ChrisA

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

#18104

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:42:05 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:

> On Dec 27, 8:21 pm, Tim Chase <python.l...@tim.thechases.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'm glad you're open to learning more about English as "used to" is
>> perfectly acceptable according to the World English Dictionary[1] [...]
>> May you be found better for learning and come to give others the
>> benefit of the doubt.
> 
> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world" dictionary. I
> don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony baloney group of
> pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that writing a dictionary
> "might be cool". I am against these words and phrases because we already
> have words that work just fine. Why rock the boat?

Why do you say "rock" when the word "shake" is just as good?

Why do you say "boat" when we already have "ship"?

Why do you say "pseudo intellectuals" when you could say "fake 
intellectuals"?

Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?


[...]
> This is group has the most dumbest smart people i have ever met!

Considering I keep expecting you to stop trolling, I admit this applies 
to me.


-- 
Steven

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

#18109

On Dec 28, 11:59 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>
> > This is group has the most dumbest smart people i have ever met!
>
> Considering I keep expecting you to stop trolling, I admit this applies
> to me.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/55234

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

#18255

On 2011-12-28, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:42:05 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
>> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world"
>> dictionary. I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony
>> baloney group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that
>> writing a dictionary "might be cool". I am against these words and
>> phrases because we already have words that work just fine. Why rock
>> the boat?
>
> Why do you say "rock" when the word "shake" is just as good?
>
> Why do you say "boat" when we already have "ship"?
>
> Why do you say "pseudo intellectuals" when you could say "fake 
> intellectuals"?
>
> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?

http://xkcd.com/386/

;)

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Not SENSUOUS ... only
                                  at               "FROLICSOME" ... and in
                              gmail.com            need of DENTAL WORK ... in
                                                   PAIN!!!

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

#18259

In article <jdnd4v$6mg$1@reader1.panix.com>,
 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 2011-12-28, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:42:05 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world"
> >> dictionary. I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony
> >> baloney group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that
> >> writing a dictionary "might be cool". I am against these words and
> >> phrases because we already have words that work just fine. Why rock
> >> the boat?
> >
> > Why do you say "rock" when the word "shake" is just as good?
> >
> > Why do you say "boat" when we already have "ship"?
> >
> > Why do you say "pseudo intellectuals" when you could say "fake 
> > intellectuals"?
> >
> > Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
> 
> http://xkcd.com/386/
> 
> ;)

Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?

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

#18266

On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:

>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>
>> ;)
>
> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?

xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still 
don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy 
for the lone and broken?

FWIW, it undermines all my attempts to block him. Sigh.

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

#18286

On 2011-12-31, Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> wrote:
> On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>>
>>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>>
>>> ;)
>>
>> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?
>
> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still 
> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy 
> for the lone and broken?

Sadly, RR's post are often (in the supposed words of Wolfgang Pauli)
"not even wrong".

-- 
Grant

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

#18287

On 01.01.2012 03:36, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-12-31, Alexander Kapps<alex.kapps@web.de>  wrote:
>> On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>>>
>>>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>>>
>>>> ;)
>>>
>>> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?
>>
>> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still
>> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy
>> for the lone and broken?
>
> Sadly, RR's post are often (in the supposed words of Wolfgang Pauli)
> "not even wrong".
>

I'm sure, RR is now jumping up high in rapture for being compared to 
high-profile scientist geniuses. Move fuel for his 	 self-affirmation.

I'll give my entire kingdom (or important body-parts, in case my 
kingdom isn't enough) if people would just understand that 
perfection(ists) is/are *the most* dangerous thing possible.

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

#18332

On 2012-01-01, Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> wrote:
> On 01.01.2012 03:36, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2011-12-31, Alexander Kapps<alex.kapps@web.de>  wrote:
>>> On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>>>>
>>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?
>>>
>>> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still
>>> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy
>>> for the lone and broken?
>>
>> Sadly, RR's post are often (in the supposed words of Wolfgang Pauli)
>> "not even wrong".
>
> I'm sure, RR is now jumping up high in rapture for being compared to 
> high-profile scientist geniuses.

I'm not comparing RR to Pauli.  I'm quoting somethin Pauli said when
criticising something that was so confusing and ill conceived that "it
wasn't even wrong".

-- 
Grant

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

#18289

On 12/31/2011 1:06 PM, Alexander Kapps wrote:
> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still 
> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy 
> for the lone and broken?
> 
> FWIW, it undermines all my attempts to block him. Sigh.
Do what I do: laugh at the joke. He's a troll and the posts are jokes.
Personally, I enjoy his posts; the silliness is good for a laugh. Once
you stop taking it seriously, it goes from irritation to entertainment.

-- 
CPython 3.2.2 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17640

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

#18288

On 12/27/2011 6:42 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:21 pm, Tim Chase<python.l...@tim.thechases.com>  wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you're open to learning more about English as "used to"
>> is perfectly acceptable according to the World English Dictionary[1]
>> [...]
>> May you be found better for learning and come to give others the
>> benefit of the doubt.
>
> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world" dictionary.
(Shouldn't this be |||world|||?)
> I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony baloney
I doubt you could validate or invalidate a word.  A word is, there is no 
validation necessary.  You could potentially try to validate it's use 
but again that's not in your power.
> group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that writing a
> dictionary "might be cool".
I think you need to go back to school to understand what a dictionary 
is.  (FYI, a dictionary codifies usage, not the other way around.)

  I am against these words and phrases
I think you mean these words and phrases being used in this way - the 
words and phrases themselves are just that.  They imply no meaning 
unless used in some kind of context.
> because we already have words that work just fine. Why rock the boat?
Perhaps you mean, because more precise words or phrases for these uses 
exist?  By your token 'work' should refer to physical activity which is 
not appropriate in this context and probably 'fine' should refer to a 
payment that is made having broken some rule or regulation thus leading 
to monetary reparation.

I think, herein lies the problem - abject denial of all evidence to the 
contrary simply because it disagrees with your limited point of view.

>
> Why would you use a word like "hard" (which describes the physical
> properties of a tangible object),

Because many words have more than one meaning and their context 
describes the meaning.  For example 'Time flies like an arrow, fruit 
flies like a banana'.  I know you can parse and understand that but the 
sentences are precisely alike, yet completely different.

   to describe how "difficult" a task
> may be?

Because it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.  Many problems are 
described as 'HARD' in technical documentation when examining their 
complexity.  I don't always like the terms used for things, but at least 
let's be consistent in our usage.

  If you insist on this lunacy, then why not use "soft" to
> describe how easy a task may be? Seems ridiculous now, huh?

Soft is used in this context - as in choosing the soft option - i.e. the 
easy way out.  And your problem is, precisely?
>
> Garbage Verbiage Translator:
For Garbage Verbiage, read 'common English'
>   Used to ->  previously|before
Though used to is perfect acceptable in any English speaking country.
>   Supposed to ->  required|expected
probably 'intended' would be better here since 'supposed to' indicates 
that you should do this, but it is not required (pretty much the 
opposite for your given translation).
>   Use to ->  accustomed|acquainted
Sorry to be picky, but "use to" refers to application as in "When I say 
'idiot', in this context 'idiot' I use to mean 'person who cannot speak 
English as it is commonly used'.", not accustomed|acquainted.  In the 
example you give, it's probably mistyped, maybe by a non-native English 
speaker.  (oh bother, I just used " and ' to denote separate spoken 
phrases, maybe I should use ||| instead.)

For what it's worth in English (i.e. British, the language I was brought 
up to speak) we say, for example:

* get on/off a bus
* get up in the morning
* get down to some music
* get around an obstacle
* get over a broken relationship
* get back to our previous place in a story
* get through a difficult time/bush
* get into a really good book
* get about town
* put up our Christmas lights
and put down an idiot that doesn't understand that English has lots of 
compound verbs that are not poorly written, just commonly used and 
understood.

>   Right (OOC) ->  Correct
While I agree 'right' can be annoying it's usage as in 'you are correct' 
can be traced back to 1588, I think we're going to have to allow for 
it's usage in 2011 (very nearly 2012 for me and definitely 2012 for 
anyone east of New York City).

>   Hard (OOC) ->  Difficult
Phrases to mean 'difficult' or 'tough' come from at least 1886 so again, 
it's use in this context is hardly new.  (And remember Charles Dickens' 
book Hard Times uses 'hard' to mean difficult not physically solid.)  In 
fact looking into this a little more carefully, "hard of hearing" 
maintains the now largely obsolete meaning of hard from Middle English 
to mean have difficult doing something.  I don't really think we can 
claim it's usage is wrong.

>   Pretty (OOC) ->  very
Pretty on it's own doesn't mean very at all.  (God knows where you got 
that idea from.)  When combined with another adjective, such as hard, 
pretty does enhance the adjective.  However, pretty difficult is not the 
same as very difficult.  Pretty, in this context would probably be 
better defined as 'somewhat' or 'quite'.  (Oh and it's use in this 
context can be traced back to 1565.)

While you're here you might want to investigate what nice and liaise 
mean cause they probably don't mean what you think they do.

>
> This is group has the most dumbest smart people i have ever met!

I don't know what planet you come from, but I would refrain from picking 
arguments over tedious detail of words when it is perfectly clear what 
people mean.

-- 
Dominic Binks: dbinks@codeaurora.org
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web