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

#57180

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/10/2013 07:44, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>> [ a whole lot of stuff ]
>
> As my crystal ball is once again being mended, would you please be kind
> enough to tell all of us who and exactly what you're replying to.

Mine is in service at the moment. It says that Peter was actually trying to say:

"I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context."

Peter, please can you use a different posting method? GG doesn't wrap
text properly, so it often results in really long lines with only a
single angle-bracket marking it as a quote, which makes the _next_
level of citation ugly.

ChrisA

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

#57182

On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:

> "I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
> then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context."

Because it's written in (say) C++ in an object orientated style, so by 
rewriting it using assembler in a procedural style it will be fixed?

>
> ChrisA
>

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

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

#57183

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> "I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
>> then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context."
>
>
> Because it's written in (say) C++ in an object orientated style, so by
> rewriting it using assembler in a procedural style it will be fixed?

Certainly not. The solution is to use FORTRAN and functional style.
That should be obvious!

ChrisA

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

#57185

On 21/10/2013 08:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> "I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
>>> then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context."
>>
>>
>> Because it's written in (say) C++ in an object orientated style, so by
>> rewriting it using assembler in a procedural style it will be fixed?
>
> Certainly not. The solution is to use FORTRAN and functional style.
> That should be obvious!
>
> ChrisA
>

Thank you for the correction, my mistake I'm afraid :(

-- 
Python is the second best programming language in the world.
But the best has yet to be invented.  Christian Tismer

Mark Lawrence

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

#57186

On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 23:44:27 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:

> This is just one language feature. I could go on and on. The idea that
> the differences between these languages is just syntactic sugar and
> aesthetics is so profoundly misguided that I can only assume that this
> misconception was proposed as a bizarre form of trolling.

I don't know who you are responding to, or what they said to give you the 
impression that they believe that all differences between languages is 
*merely* syntactic sugar, but I certainly don't believe that.

In fact, given that you haven't quoted anyone, I'm tempted to call it a 
straw-man, except you don't appear to be arguing against anyone, so there 
is nobody it could be a straw-man of :-)



-- 
Steven

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

#57187

Python is the Best!

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

#57188

Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate trolling.

"One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that 
useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or "ugly" in some 
languages, so they create new languages with different syntax to make 
those useful patterns easier to use."

This is just profoundly wrong. If anything, different languages strive to maintain common syntax. You can see foo.bar() as legal syntax meaning essentially the same thing in C++, C#, Java and Python (and likely quite a few other languages). There is NOT a deliberate effort to create new syntax just for aesthetics, there is the exact opposite. There is a deliberate effort to maintain consistency with the syntax of pre-existing languages.

Languages sprout up for a variety of reasons. C++ has very significant functionality that doesn't exist in C. Java/C# can say the same thing to C++, and Python to all of the others. 

Please lets not pretend that it's all just ballpark equivalent facades plastered on top of a Turing machine. New languages pop up to automate boring and repetitive tasks that chew up your time in older languages. That's the trend - abstractions automating repetitious and error-prone tasks. 

Not "hey, this syntax isn't too my taste, I'm going to toodle it up".

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

#57189

Are you suggesting Advertising is the Best language there is....?
# After many years, I agree not, but what to may...
    def If I do Something do, you not react():
         IsMySyntaxNotCorrect()
         CanINotCorrectMyGrammaticalMistakesAndSeekAcceptance():
         # The most arguable language is arguably the most important to discuss.
         # Everyone is of the same basic mindset here.
         # 16 years of reading everyone elses words hasn't changed my view.
         # I make it real, and sometime I don't like it either.
         # Actions speak loader than comments.
         language = python

         benefits = failures
         failures = newTerminology
         newTerminology = newIdeas
         newIdeas = benefits

         Sometimes when the whole world doesn't complain about your newTerminology, they are trying to say let it live, but more often they say "leave it alone". And Vise Versa.

         But more often they complain about the readability.
         Or the Indenation.
         Or the style of a personal poem.
         Or how the next person should learn it best.
         
I read a indented book first, then I read a un indented book. Sir.
  go figure....
         nowpost()

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

#57192

On Monday, October 21, 2013 2:13:52 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate trolling.

The same could be said for this below… but…

> 
> "One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that 
> useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or "ugly" in some 
> languages, so they create new languages with different syntax to make 
> those useful patterns easier to use."
> 
> 
> This is just profoundly wrong. If anything, different languages strive to 
> maintain common syntax. You can see foo.bar() as legal syntax meaning 
> essentially the same thing in C++, C#, Java and Python (and likely quite a 
> few other languages). There is NOT a deliberate effort to create new syntax 
> just for aesthetics, there is the exact opposite. There is a deliberate 
> effort to maintain consistency with the syntax of pre-existing languages.
> 
> 
> 
> Languages sprout up for a variety of reasons. C++ has very significant 
> functionality that doesn't exist in C. Java/C# can say the same thing to C++, 
> and Python to all of the others. 
> 
> 
> Please lets not pretend that it's all just ballpark equivalent facades 
> plastered on top of a Turing machine. New languages pop up to automate boring 
> and repetitive tasks that chew up your time in older languages. That's the
> trend - abstractions automating repetitious and error-prone tasks. 
> 
> 
> 
> Not "hey, this syntax isn't too my taste, I'm going to toodle it up".


… but I am not going to do so.
Instead I reiterate:

The whole point of studying programming language semantics is just so that we can distinguish between the 'just toodle it up' differences and the bigger ones.
And so projects that take the Alice' Humpty Dumpty attitude:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." 

should be treated with suspicion in correspondence with the scorn.

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

#57221

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:

> Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate
> trolling.
> 
> "One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
> useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or "ugly" in some
> languages, so they create new languages with different syntax to make
> those useful patterns easier to use."

As the author of that quote -- and I wonder why you're dropping 
attributions -- I can assure you I am not trolling.

Why do you think that my comment is misguided? If you don't believe that 
people write new languages because they are dissatisfied with the 
existing ones, why do you think they write new languages?

I think that my comment should be uncontroversial. At least some 
languages were invented because the author was dissatisfied with some 
existing language and wanted a "better" language. Bjarne Stroustrup wrote 
C++ to be a better C supporting data abstraction, OOP and generic 
programming, which were too hard to do right in C.

http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html

Niklaus Wirth wrote Pascal because he wanted a *simpler* language than 
Algol -- he famously walked out of one of the Algol design conferences 
because he disagreed with the direction they were taking -- and then he 
followed Pascal with Modula 2 and Oberon to be "better" Pascals, e.g. 
adding support for parallisation, which was hard to do in Pascal.

Bertrand Meyer invented Eiffel because he liked the style of Ada and the 
OOP of Stimula, and wanted to make Design By Contract easier to use.



> This is just profoundly wrong. If anything, different languages strive
> to maintain common syntax.

With respect, I think that demonstrates a lack of experience with 
programming languages. What "common syntax" do you perceive between 
languages such as these?

- Hypertalk
- Forth
- Pascal
- Lisp
- Haskell
- bash
- Inform 7
- Prolog

All of these are real languages; none of them are joke languages. If you 
aren't at least aware of their existence, and the general "feel" of their 
syntax, then you aren't qualified to comment on programming language 
syntax. The world is much bigger than just the C family of languages.

Of course, languages tend to resemble the languages that most influenced 
them, and there are distinct "family resemblances", e.g. XTalk languages, 
Algol-based languages, etc. Some pairs of languages are closer than 
others, e.g. both Hypertalk and Haskell would accept "x + 1" as a valid 
expression to evaluate one more than x, whereas in Forth it means 
something completely different.


> You can see foo.bar() as legal syntax meaning
> essentially the same thing in C++, C#, Java and Python (and likely quite
> a few other languages). There is NOT a deliberate effort to create new
> syntax just for aesthetics, there is the exact opposite. There is a
> deliberate effort to maintain consistency with the syntax of
> pre-existing languages.

Perhaps you ought to re-read my earlier comment. I did not say that 
people "create new syntax just for aesthetics". I said that one reason 
for making a new language (there may be more than one!) is if a useful 
idiom or design pattern is *hard to use* in a language. Parallel 
processing is hard in Pascal, so Wirth created Oberon; OOP is hard in C, 
so Stroustrup created C++.

Often languages aren't just "another language, plus foo" for some foo. 
Java isn't just C-with-garbage-collection-and-objects, but James Gosling 
invented Java because he wasn't happy with the level of support for 
garbage collection and OOP in existing languages. They're not just gluing 
"one more feature" on top of an existing language. Here is Rob Pike's 
explanation for why Go was invented:

http://commandcenter.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/less-is-exponentially-
more.html

Short version: they wanted a language where concurrency was easy, and 
were dissatisfied with C and C++. Pike tried to do concurrency in C++ and 
failed:

    [quote]
    I actually tried and failed to find a way to bring the ideas 
    to C++. It was too difficult to couple the concurrent operations 
    with C++'s control structures, and in turn that made it too hard
    to see the real advantages. Plus C++ just made it all seem too
    cumbersome, although I admit I was never truly facile in the
    language. So I abandoned the idea.


Actually, depending on how you define aesthetics, that is *exactly* why 
people define new syntax. You can write loops with GOTO:

10 do this
20 do that
30 if condition GOTO 10

but it's "ugly", by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not 
easily maintained. And so modern languages eschew GOTO for while loops. 
Likewise if you have while, you don't strictly need for loops as well:

i = start
while i < end:
    process(i)
    i += step

nevertheless compared to a for-loop, such a construct is "ugly" (harder 
to use, more error prone, less easily maintained, harder to read, harder 
to analyse), and so modern imperative languages tend to provide both.

(Functional languages tend to use recursion and comprehensions in place 
of explicit loops.)


> Languages sprout up for a variety of reasons. C++ has very significant
> functionality that doesn't exist in C. Java/C# can say the same thing to
> C++, and Python to all of the others.


Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but 
cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java?

(Here's a hint: there are at least two Python interpreters written in C. 
How does Python manage to do things which the underlying C implementation 
is utterly incapable of? What if you embedded a mini Python-like 
interpreter in your C code?)

 
> Please lets not pretend that it's all just ballpark equivalent facades
> plastered on top of a Turing machine. 

I never said that.


> New languages pop up to automate
> boring and repetitive tasks that chew up your time in older languages.
> That's the trend - abstractions automating repetitious and error-prone
> tasks.
> 
> Not "hey, this syntax isn't too my taste, I'm going to toodle it up".

And that is certainly a straw-man.


-- 
Steven

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

#57254

Steven wrote:

> The world is much bigger than just the C family of languages.

And even within that space, the original authors of C left plenty of
room for debate/improvement. In at least two dimensions (object
oriented programming, and memory management), various C descendants
have tried multiple different approaches to solve those problems.

Skip

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

#57413

On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> 
> Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but 
> cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java?

Ummm... hmmm.... let me try here...

string = 'Python is the Best!'

if string:
    try:
        string = int(string)
    except Exception as exc:
        integer = str(integer)
else:
    print('Typecasting Maybe...')

I get more comments on "Typecasting" from those who don't know how to use a press more than anything, than I get from the typesetter.
#... maybe she's ignoring me...

Am I right?

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

#57223

"but it's "ugly", by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
easily maintained."

OK, I see the problem. What you call "ugly" is really just objectively bad.

Ugliness and beauty are subjective qualities that can't really be debated on a deep level. Like I mentioned in other post, I find the lazy-evaluation idiom that avoids __init__ initialization of the stored value to be pretty, so I code it that way (in C#, in Java, in Python, even though the syntax is slightly different in each one).

But I wouldn't say that using the __init__ (or the constructor) to initialize the lazy variable is "hard to use, error prone, not easily maintained". I would say it's ugly (or less pretty), and that it does seem to have some minor functional drawbacks. But I wouldn't make a big deal out of it if a colleague wanted to code it that way. 

Looking at Fortran, C, C++, C#, Java and Python (the languages I have done large bodies of work in, and, not coincidentally, some of the most popular languages ever, since I like to get paid and that requires going with the flow a little) it's easy to see that a lot of cosmetic things are maintained (i.e. foo.bar(), k += 1, etc) but some important, conceptual things are improved in profound ways. So a colleague that was advocating coding a project in C when Python would work ... yeah, that's a deal breaker, we're going to lock horns over that. 

I wasn't going to ramble on like this but I think you, Stephen, were the one encouraging me to step into the flames.

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

#57225

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:

Guess-who said:

> "but it's "ugly", by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
> easily maintained."
> 
> OK, I see the problem. What you call "ugly" is really just objectively bad.

You continue to not attribute quotes.

What user agent/group are you using?

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

#57238

On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:19 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
> Guess-who said:
>
>> "but it's "ugly", by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
>> easily maintained."
>>
>> OK, I see the problem. What you call "ugly" is really just objectively bad.
>
> You continue to not attribute quotes.
>
> What user agent/group are you using?

I don't know what headers come through on comp.lang.python, but on the
mailing list, I can see some clear fingerprints that it's the one so
many of us hate...

Message-ID: <6f511c0b-c5fa-4307-9a2a-cb73a17688ef@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com

Though I don't think the abuse address would do much with complaints
regarding citation courtesy :)

ChrisA

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

#57244

rusi said :

"You continue to not attribute quotes. "

Sorry, I'll try to be better about this all-important aspect of sharing knowledge.

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

#57503

On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
> Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
> cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java? 

Please. No exceptions is huge. No garbage collection is huge. 

But you can do anything with a Turing machine. You can do anything in assembly. The point is to pick the appropriate tool for the job.

I can build a house without a nail gun. I can probably even build a house without a hammer. But it's a waste of time to build things with the wrong tools.

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

#57594

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 01:12:12 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:

> On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>
>> Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
>> cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java?
> 
> Please. No exceptions is huge. No garbage collection is huge.

You have over-trimmed and lost context. The context here is that I 
maintain that one of the reasons for inventing new languages is to 
provide useful programming idioms and techniques in a convenient, clean 
way, that is, with syntactic support and a minimum of needless 
boilerplate. You have objected to this view, and (if I understand you 
correctly) believe that there are certain idioms which are *impossible* 
in C, hence the invention of new languages.

I agree with you that garbage collection and exceptions are useful, 
powerful features. I agree with you that the difference between a 
language which supports them natively (like Python) and one which does 
not (like C) is huge. But beyond that I think you are mistaken.

C does not natively provide garbage collection, or exceptions, or many 
other features. But that doesn't make it *impossible* to use these 
features in C, it just makes them *inconvenient and difficult*. To get 
the advantage of such features, you have to build a framework that 
provides them, then exclusively use the framework, while avoiding 
dropping down into the underlying low-level C features that bypass the 
framework. This is inconvenient, error-prone, inelegant, and requires 
discipline, but it is *possible*.

Take the framework to the next level: add custom syntax, a parser, and a 
system for translating your custom syntax to (say) C, or machine code for 
some (real or virtual) machine. We call this *a programming language*. 
But that's just an incremental step beyond a framework, which in turn is 
just an incremental step beyond a library, which in turn is just an 
incremental step beyond an ad hoc system of useful wrapper functions and 
conventions.

In a very real sense, Python is "just" a convenience wrapper around a 
bunch of C functions to provide OOP idioms, garbage collection, dynamic 
typing, runtime introspection, exceptions, and similar.


> But you can do anything with a Turing machine. You can do anything in
> assembly. The point is to pick the appropriate tool for the job.

I agree! And building those tools is one of the reasons why people create 
new programming languages: to make useful techniques and idioms easier to 
use.


> I can build a house without a nail gun. I can probably even build a
> house without a hammer. But it's a waste of time to build things with
> the wrong tools.

I don't think the right analogy is with the nail gun versus hammer. Both 
result in the same finished product: two pieces of timber joined together 
with one or more pointy bits of steel. Sure, a nail gun is faster and 
easier, but the idiom is the same.

A better analogy is to consider the various ways to assemble timber: 
nails, screws, glue, dowels, biscuits, dovetail joints, etc. These are 
all *idioms and techniques* for getting the same result (two pieces of 
wood joined), rather than different tools for performing the same idiom 
(drive a nail using a nail gun, a hammer or a rock). Each idiom has 
different pros and cons: biscuits are good for joining chipwood edge-to-
edge, but lousy for load bearing structural timbers.

Like all analogies, it doesn't pay to take it too far, but essentially 
you can think of a language like Python as being like a machine shop with 
a dedicated biscuit joiner, while C is like one without such a device. 
You can use the same technique in both, but the ease of use, convenience 
and reliability is quite different:

* In Python, you use the biscuit joiner to quickly cut out a matching,
  nicely machined slot in both pieces of chipboard.

* In C, you have to manually and carefully drill out many thin holes in
  the chipboard, then laboriously cut through to make a slot, then file
  smooth by hand. Not only is this much more work, but the end result is
  likely to be less reliable.


For anyone who has no idea what I'm talking about when I talk about 
biscuit joiners:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit_joiner



-- 
Steven

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

#57595

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> C does not natively provide garbage collection, or exceptions, or many
> other features. But that doesn't make it *impossible* to use these
> features in C, it just makes them *inconvenient and difficult*. To get
> the advantage of such features, you have to build a framework that
> provides them, then exclusively use the framework, while avoiding
> dropping down into the underlying low-level C features that bypass the
> framework. This is inconvenient, error-prone, inelegant, and requires
> discipline, but it is *possible*.

Provably possible, by the Sir Ruthven method[1]: libnih, as used by
Upstart and other systems, is a garbage-collected (refcounted, I
think) C memory allocation library. I believe I mentioned this earlier
in one of these threads.

> For anyone who has no idea what I'm talking about when I talk about
> biscuit joiners:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit_joiner

As one of the "anyone", I thank you :)

ChrisA

[1] See Ruddigore, where Sir Ruthven claims to have forged his own
will; his uncle claims it's not possible, which Sir R disproves by
saying that he's already done so.

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

#57636 — Re: Python was designed

Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> writes:
>> Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
>> cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java? 
> Please. No exceptions is huge. No garbage collection is huge. 
> But you can do anything with a Turing machine. ...

Lumping C, C++, C#, and Java together misses the most important thing.
Python, C#, and Java all have a vital capability, that's inherently
missing from C and C++, and it's not garbage collection.  Namely, you
get the ability to write a program and have the assurance that bugs in
your code won't overwrite memory at random or make the program segfault.
You instead get a reasonable stack trace saying what was going on when
the error happened.

To riff on Benjamin Pierce, programming is not just about letting you
supply the presence of given behaviors (any sane Turing-complete
language lets you do that).  It's also about ensuring the -absence- of
other behaviors, and that in fact is where the heavy lifting of language
design is mostly directed.

FYI, there is real though imprecise garbage collection for C.  Web
search for "Boehm garbage collection" should find more info.

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

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

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

csiph-web