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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #56759 > unrolled thread

Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java)

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

Contents

  Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-13 09:37 +1100
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-13 03:38 +0000
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-13 15:34 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-10-13 09:04 -0400
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 03:39 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2013-10-14 12:18 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 09:43 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 10:11 +1100
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-15 08:50 +0000
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 08:48 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 18:31 -0700
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 20:02 -0700
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 13:26 -0700
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-15 21:46 +0000
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 10:45 -0700
                Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-16 18:42 +0000
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2013-10-15 23:01 +0100
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 21:45 -0700
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 10:57 -0700
                Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 11:25 -0700
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> - 2013-10-16 13:49 -0500
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 07:40 +1100
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 17:13 -0700
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 11:28 +1100
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-10-16 20:47 -0400
                    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 18:30 -0700
                      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2013-10-17 11:20 +0300
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 17:53 -0700
                    Re: Python was designed Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org> - 2013-10-16 22:33 -0400
                    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-17 05:24 +0000
                    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-17 13:43 +0000
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 12:01 +1100
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-10-16 22:09 -0400
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-17 08:02 +0100
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 07:49 -0700
                    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-18 01:52 +0000
                      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 19:08 -0700
                        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 20:34 -0700
                        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-18 03:56 +0000
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 02:00 +1100
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-17 16:00 +0100
                Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-16 18:44 +0000
                Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 10:26 +1000
            Re: Python was designed Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org> - 2013-10-15 23:20 -0400
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 20:53 -0700
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 10:32 -0700
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2013-10-17 18:44 +0100
                Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 20:15 -0700
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-17 19:08 +0100
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 12:49 -0700
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-10-17 16:57 -0400
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2013-10-17 15:10 -0700
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 18:59 -0700
                Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-18 02:57 +0000
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-15 23:48 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-14 21:35 -0400
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-10-14 21:50 -0400
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-15 08:21 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 12:48 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 19:11 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 13:19 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-15 03:18 +0000
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 14:29 +1100
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 20:48 -0700
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-15 05:51 +0000
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-10-15 09:48 +0200
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 19:57 +1100
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-15 15:01 +0000
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 06:09 +1100
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2013-10-15 16:17 -0500
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-10-15 12:26 +0200
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2013-10-15 13:11 -0700
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-15 22:00 +0100
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2013-10-24 23:14 -0700
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 19:05 +0100
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 04:46 +0000
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-14 14:11 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-14 22:43 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 09:45 +1100
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-15 17:18 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-16 23:49 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 18:15 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 05:39 -0700
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 06:00 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-17 16:15 -0400
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-17 21:41 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-18 03:14 +0000
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 15:12 +1100
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-18 04:45 +0000
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 15:53 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-19 09:57 +0000
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-19 21:49 +1100
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 00:23 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2013-10-17 09:42 +0200
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 19:24 +1100
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-18 01:58 +0000
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org> - 2013-10-17 12:58 -0400
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 12:37 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-10-17 20:01 -0400
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 11:09 +1100
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 13:54 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 13:32 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 21:41 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 22:26 -0700
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-19 16:35 +1100
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-21 02:07 +0000
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-10-20 22:21 -0400
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-20 21:44 -0700
          Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 17:56 +1100
            Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-10-21 09:05 -0400
              Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Lele Gaifax <lele@metapensiero.it> - 2013-10-22 09:38 +0200
                Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-23 08:16 +0000
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2013-10-23 06:36 -0400
                    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-23 14:21 +0000
                  Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2013-10-24 00:31 +1300
                    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Lele Gaifax <lele@metapensiero.it> - 2013-10-23 17:56 +0200
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 13:56 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-20 23:44 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 18:01 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 08:27 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 18:31 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 08:39 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 18:43 +1100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 09:11 +0100
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-21 08:24 +0000
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Metallicow <metaliobovinus@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 01:39 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 01:43 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Metallicow <metaliobovinus@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 02:17 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 05:50 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-22 02:29 +0000
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> - 2013-10-22 07:02 -0500
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Metallicow <metaliobovinus@gmail.com> - 2013-10-23 22:31 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 19:55 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 20:19 -0700
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-22 17:13 +1100
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-22 00:51 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 01:12 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 06:19 +0000
        Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 17:36 +1100
      Re: Python was designed Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-26 10:36 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 23:59 -0700
    Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 12:24 -0700
      Re: Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 22:31 +0100

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#56893

>> Who uses "object abstraction" in C?  No one.  That's why C++ was invented.
>
> I wonder if you've heard of something called linux?
> http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/

If not, Linux, how about Python?

http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects

Skip

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

#56896

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Skip Montanaro <skip@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Who uses "object abstraction" in C?  No one.  That's why C++ was invented.
>>
>> I wonder if you've heard of something called linux?
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/
>
> If not, Linux, how about Python?
>
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects

Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
object oriented and mostly C. It's done with SOM, so it's possible to
subclass someone else's object using a completely different language.
Makes for a lot of boilerplate in the source code, but it works. You
can even - often without the different subclasses being aware of each
other - have two or more unrelated modules each subclass-and-replace a
standard class like WPFolder (which represents a folder, usually
backed by a directory on disk) to modify its behaviour.

Yep, definitely possible to write OO code in C.

ChrisA

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

#56912

>>>> Who uses "object abstraction" in C?  No one.  That's why C++ was invented.
>>>
>> If not, Linux, how about Python?
>>
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
>
> Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
> object oriented and mostly C. It's done with SOM, so it's possible to
> subclass someone else's object using a completely different language.

Now this is the first real objection to my statement: OS/2 and the
Presentation Manager, or windowing system.

But, here it is significant that the user /consumer (i.e. *at the
workstation* mind you) is *making* the "object" because thier visual
system turns it into one.  Otherwise, at the C-level, I'm guessing
it's normal C code without objects, only struct-ured data.  That is,
you don't get all the OOP benefits like inheritance, polymorphism and
encapsulation.  C can do 2 of those, albeit kludgingly, but not all
three.  And without all three, it's not at all well-established that
you're doing real OOP.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

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

#56916

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Mark Janssen
<dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, here it is significant that the user /consumer (i.e. *at the
> workstation* mind you) is *making* the "object" because thier visual
> system turns it into one.  Otherwise, at the C-level, I'm guessing
> it's normal C code without objects, only struct-ured data.  That is,
> you don't get all the OOP benefits like inheritance, polymorphism and
> encapsulation.  C can do 2 of those, albeit kludgingly, but not all
> three.  And without all three, it's not at all well-established that
> you're doing real OOP.

Wrong. At the C level, it's all still objects, with inheritance,
polymorphism, and encapsulation. Piles and piles of boilerplate to
make things work, and you have to compile your .IDL file into C and
then fill in your code, and make sure you don't disrupt things, but it
works beautifully. It's object oriented machine code.

ChrisA

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

#56920

On 10/16/13 8:13 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>>>> Who uses "object abstraction" in C?  No one.  That's why C++ was invented.
>>> If not, Linux, how about Python?
>>>
>>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
>> Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
>> object oriented and mostly C. It's done with SOM, so it's possible to
>> subclass someone else's object using a completely different language.
> Now this is the first real objection to my statement: OS/2 and the
> Presentation Manager, or windowing system.
>
> But, here it is significant that the user /consumer (i.e. *at the
> workstation* mind you) is *making* the "object" because thier visual
> system turns it into one.  Otherwise, at the C-level, I'm guessing
> it's normal C code without objects, only struct-ured data.  That is,
> you don't get all the OOP benefits like inheritance, polymorphism and
> encapsulation.  C can do 2 of those, albeit kludgingly, but not all
> three.  And without all three, it's not at all well-established that
> you're doing real OOP.
>

Mark, it's clear you're passionate about computer science, but with all 
due respect, you need to learn more about it.  "Real OOP" is a misnomer: 
every language brings its own style of OOP, none more legitimate than 
any other.  And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens 
is wildly ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.

--Ned.

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

#56926

On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:17:57 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 10/16/13 8:13 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> 
> >>>>> Who uses "object abstraction" in C?  No one.  That's why C++ was invented.

Examples from 
1. Linux Kernel
2. Python
3. OS/2

> > But, here it is significant that the user /consumer (i.e. *at the
> > workstation* mind you) is *making* the "object" because thier visual
> > system turns it into one.  Otherwise, at the C-level, I'm guessing
> > it's normal C code without objects, only struct-ured data.  That is,
> > you don't get all the OOP benefits like inheritance, polymorphism and
> > encapsulation.  C can do 2 of those, albeit kludgingly, but not all
> > three.  And without all three, it's not at all well-established that
> > you're doing real OOP.
> >
> 
> 
> Mark, it's clear you're passionate about computer science, but with all 
> due respect, you need to learn more about it.  "Real OOP" is a misnomer: 
> every language brings its own style of OOP, none more legitimate than 
> any other.

> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens 
> is wildly ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.

Yes this is sounding like some slapstick comedy…

However… to speak a little for Mark's perspective (from a hopefully more educated background):
There's a fine line between laboriously simulating a feature and properly supporting it:
- C has arbitrary precision arithmetic -- use gmp library
- C is a functional language -- use function pointers and/or hand-generated macros with macro operators # and ##
Conversely:
- Haskell is an imperative language: Just make a parameter for machine state and pass it around.
etc etc ad libitum

Its called the Turing tarpit or more colloquially Greenspun's tenth law.

No the real problem is not primarily that Mark is CS-illiterate, but rather that being philosophy-illiterate he lectures, philosophizes and is generally logically completely inconsistent.

For me the real objectionable statement is: 

> And without all three, it's not at all well-established that you're doing real OOP. 

when combined with all his previous grandiloquence about how the object model is confused, wrong and needs to be redone from first principles.

In short its 'well-established' when it suits and not 'well-established' when it suits.

But then in all fairness this is the tendency of most OOP aficionados --
to jump between the 3 levels of discourse:
1. philosophy
2. science
3. technicality/technology

just to dodge the substantive, hard issues.

Ive written about this OOP-fan tendency prevaricate and bullshit:
http://blog.languager.org/2012/07/we-dont-need-no-ooooo-orientation-2.html

and more generally http://blog.languager.org/search/label/OOP

And I need to thank Mark for giving me much needed material for documenting the state of art of bullshitting.

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

#56944

rusi writes:

> However - to speak a little for Mark's perspective (from a hopefully
> more educated background): There's a fine line between laboriously
> simulating a feature and properly supporting it:
>
> - C has arbitrary precision arithmetic -- use gmp library
> - C is a functional language -- use function pointers and/or
>   hand-generated macros with macro operators # and ##

A tangent, but I cannot resist: that latter point is literally the
first thing I ever heard about C.

I knew some Basic, 6502 (dis)assembler, I think Pascal, and probably
Forth, at the time, and I had some idea about what functional
programming means. I may have been already interested in Scheme, but I
don't think I had access to an implementation yet.

Then I overheard an acquaintance telling another: "C is a functional
programming language" ("C on funktionaalinen ohjelmointikieli").
Interesting! But when I later learnt some C it turned out to be almost
the opposite of functional programming.

I guess it was the terminology: Pascal had "procedures" and
"functions" while C only had "functions".

(Mis)information was not as abundant back then as it is now.

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

#56922

> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.

Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago.  Your input is rubbish.
-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

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

#56929 — Re: Python was designed

Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> writes:

>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
>
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
> ago.  Your input is rubbish.

With all due respect, Mark, your remarks are rubbish. Nobody talked about parsing input with binary switches except you. I answered that 40 years ago I wrote a parser generator that generated a parser for Algol 68 (and another one for Algol 60 I should have added). And all this was using punched cards.
-- 
Piet van Oostrum <piet@vanoostrum.org>
WWW: http://pietvanoostrum.com/
PGP key: [8DAE142BE17999C4]

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

#56934

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:53:22 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
> 
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years ago. 
> Your input is rubbish.

Mark, it's 2013, not 1993. You're twenty years out of date.

"Binary switches" was state of the art in the mid 1940s. By the late 
1940s programmers were writing code in machine code, and by early 1950s 
they were using assembly code. Some of the early programming languages 
include:

- Regional Assembly Language (1951)
- Autocode (1952)
- Speedcode (1953)
- IPL (1954)
- FLOW-MATIC (1955)

leading to the first "high-level" language, FORTRAN (1955 or 1957, 
depending on what stage you consider it as "invented").

Fifty years ago, in 1963, programmers had a choice between many high-
level languages, including:

- FORTRAN (invented in 1955)
- COMTRAN (1957)
- LISP, ALGOL (1958)
- FACT, COBOL, RPG (1959)
- APL, Simula, Snobol (1962)
- CPL (1963)

and were only a year away from being able to program in BASIC and PL/I as 
well.


-- 
Steven

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

#56959

On 2013-10-17, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
>
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
> ago.  Your input is rubbish.

Are you under the misapprehension that "punched cards" and "binary
switches" are the same thing?  

Punched cards were just another meidium for source code or textual
data.  Each card was a line of text (either a line of source code or a
line of data).

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I know how to do
                                  at               SPECIAL EFFECTS!!
                              gmail.com            

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

#56923

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Mark Janssen
<dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
>
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
> ago.  Your input is rubbish.

I can't quote you anything for 50 years ago, but this is 40:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA#Significant_implementations

ELIZA parsed English text.

ChrisA

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

#56928

On 10/16/13 8:53 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
> ago.  Your input is rubbish.

The mention of punched cards was from you:

    Prior to that [the '70s] you have punch cards where there's no meaningful definition of "parsing" because there are no tokens.

I have no idea what you mean by this.  Punched cards are an input mechanism.  Each one held 80 characters (ever wonder why people are so fixated on 80-character lines?).  Those characters could represent text just as 80 characters in today's text files do.  It was common for those cards to hold lines of program text which were parsed into tokens, etc.

Sure, go back far enough and you get to switches, etc, but programs have been input as text for far longer than you think.  Fortran was first proposed 60 years ago, and was parsed as tokens.  Lisp and Cobol both happened before 1960.

In any case, I've gone back to read the emails where you wrote this, and I can't make sense of how tokens come into the originl topic at all.

You seem drawn to sweeping statements about the current state and history of computer science, but then make claims like this about punched cards that just make no sense.

--Ned.

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

#56939

On 17/10/2013 01:53, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
>
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
> ago.  Your input is rubbish.
>

You must be one of the happiest people on this planet.  At least with 
respect to the history of computer science, ignorance is bliss.

-- 
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Most poems rhyme,
But this one doesn't.

Mark Lawrence

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

#56963

>    Prior to that [the '70s] you have punch cards where there's no meaningful
> definition of "parsing" because there are no tokens.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by this. [...]
> You seem drawn to sweeping statements about the current state and history of
> computer science, but then make claims like this about punched cards that
> just make no sense.

It's like this.  No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
the computers where you load instructions with switches.  At that
point, I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit
lexer.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

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

#57011

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:49:52 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

> It's like this.  No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
> the computers where you load instructions with switches.  At that point,
> I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.

Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his 
Analytical Engine and his laboriously hand-cast analog gears.

Nobody disputes than once there were no parsers or lexers, and then some 
time later there were. But so bloody what? That is ancient history, 
irrelevant to the practice of computer programming for the last sixty 
years. There is likely hardly anyone still alive who was programming 
using switches, there weren't that many of them in the first place and 
they would be in their 80s or 90s now.

It's not the fact that parsers once didn't exist that people object to, 
but your total misunderstanding of when that was and its significance to 
computer science today.

Relevant:

http://www.xkcd.com/451/



-- 
Steven

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

#57017

>> It's like this.  No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
>> the computers where you load instructions with switches.  At that point,
>> I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
>
> Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his
> Analytical Engine and his laboriously hand-cast analog gears.

And there you bring up the heart of it:  the confusion in computer
science.  thank you.  Babbage's differential engine is not doing
*computation* , it is doing *physics*.  We must draw a line somewhere,
because the digital realm in the machine is so entirely separate from
the physics (and even the physical hardware), that I could make a
whole other universe that does not conform to it.  It is a whole other
ModelOfComputation.

Q.E.D.  (Who else is going to have to eat a floppy disk here?)

> Relevant:
>
> http://www.xkcd.com/451/

*winks*.  BTW, all this regarding "models of computation" and such is
relevant to the discussion only because of one thing:  I like python.
I will leave that vague response for a later exercise after I get an
invite from a University (MIT?) to head their Computer Engineering
department.

Cheers,

Mark

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

#57024

On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:38:30 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> >> It's like this.  No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
> >> the computers where you load instructions with switches.  At that point,
> >> I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
> >
> > Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his
> > Analytical Engine and his laboriously hand-cast analog gears.
> 
> And there you bring up the heart of it:  the confusion in computer
> science.  thank you.  Babbage's differential engine is not doing
> *computation* , it is doing *physics*.  

And today's computers dont 'do' electronics??

Heres Dijkstra
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD09xx/EWD924.html
and search forward to 'magic'

> We must draw a line somewhere,
> because the digital realm in the machine is so entirely separate from
> the physics (and even the physical hardware), that I could make a
> whole other universe that does not conform to it.  It is a whole other
> ModelOfComputation.
> 
> Q.E.D.  (Who else is going to have to eat a floppy disk here?)


> > Relevant:
> >
> > http://www.xkcd.com/451/

> *winks*.  BTW, all this regarding "models of computation" and such is
> relevant to the discussion only because of one thing:  I like python.
> I will leave that vague response for a later exercise after I get an
> invite from a University (MIT?) to head their Computer Engineering
> department.

Jokes have a propensity to reveal the subconscious of the jokers
[Btw that joke is usually called a pun]

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

#57026

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:08:30 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:

>>> It's like this.  No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
>>> the computers where you load instructions with switches.  At that
>>> point, I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit
>>> lexer.
>>
>> Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his
>> Analytical Engine and his laboriously hand-cast analog gears.
> 
> And there you bring up the heart of it:  the confusion in computer
> science.  thank you.  Babbage's differential engine is not doing
> *computation* , it is doing *physics*.

That's certainly a good example of confusion, but it's not computer 
science's, it's yours.

[Aside: I specifically didn't mention the difference engine because it 
wasn't a full-blown computer, merely a calculating device like an abacus, 
only more complicated. Babbage's Analytical Engine, on the other hand, 
would have been a real, Turing Complete, fully general purpose 
programmable computer, had he ever finished it.]

The point is, *everything* we do is "merely physics", since to do 
something means to have matter and energy interacting, and that is 
physics. Yes, Babbage's Analytical Engine was merely "doing physics" in 
the same way that an iPhone or IBM mainframe is "doing physics" -- or 
your brain, for that matter. All four examples are reductionism gone mad. 
The fact that the Analytical Engine used mechanical gears, while iPhones 
and mainframes use electrons drifting across doped silicon, and the brain 
uses tiny electric currents in a gelatinous chunk of meat of Byzantine 
complexity made from tens of thousands of chemicals, is the *least* 
interesting part of the exercise, from the perspective of computer 
science.

(Other perspectives are of value. For instance, how does a simple 
molecule like CH₃CH₂OH affect the computations in the brain in such a way 
that leads to punch-ups out the front of King Street nightclubs at 3 on a 
Saturday morning? Inquiring minds want to know!)

One of the insights of computer science, and obviously one that you have 
misunderstood, is that the *medium doesn't matter*. Computation is an 
interesting and important phenomenon in its own right, and it doesn't 
matter[1] whether you implement it using electric current flowing through 
wires and values, in silicon chips, using mechanical gears, water flowing 
through pipes, in the differential growth of DNA-based bacteria -- yes, 
seriously, look up "DNA computers" -- or in messy slabs of complicated 
meat. Or even using a mathematical abstraction like Conway's Game of Life.


> We must draw a line somewhere,
> because the digital realm in the machine is so entirely separate from
> the physics (and even the physical hardware), that I could make a whole
> other universe that does not conform to it.  It is a whole other
> ModelOfComputation.

But it is precisely because computation is independent of the physical 
media that it is performed on that we *should not* reject Babbage's 
Analytic Engine. It simply doesn't matter that it uses mechanical gears 
instead of doped silicon. That just means it's slower and noisier, not 
that is is any less performing computation.



[1] Except for such boring matters as efficiency and speed.

-- 
Steven
 

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

#56964

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's like this.  No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
> the computers where you load instructions with switches.  At that
> point, I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit
> lexer.

Even when computers were primarily programmed in high level languages,
boot code could still be toggled in with manual switches. There's a
story around someplace of a guy who did that _over the phone_ and, if
I recall correctly, without a reference manual - which would mean he
had the entire boot code for that computer memorized. So, yeah,
loading instructions with switches isn't incompatible with lexing,
though I don't know if that term existed at the time.

Ultimately, computers work with data, which can be represented (and
inputted) with binary states like switches, and can itself represent
text. To parse text, a computer performs analysis on binary data.
Someone could today build a computer that takes input on punched cards
or switches or a Navajo saying A'la'ih and Do'neh'lini [1], and then
parse the corresponding text as (say) C code. The two are completely
orthogonal.

ChrisA

[1] if http://xkcd.com/257/ is correct

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

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web