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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #45272 > unrolled thread

Re: Python for philosophers

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 for philosophers Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> - 2013-05-14 01:32 +0200
    Re: Python for philosophers llanitedave <llanitedave@veawb.coop> - 2013-05-13 20:33 -0700
      Fwd: Python for philosophers Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> - 2013-05-14 11:11 +0200
      Fwd: Python for philosophers Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> - 2013-05-14 12:36 +0200
    Re: Python for philosophers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-14 05:29 +0000
      Fwd: Python for philosophers Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> - 2013-05-14 10:34 +0200
        Re: Fwd: Python for philosophers DJC <djc@news.invalid> - 2013-05-14 21:27 +0100
        Re: Fwd: Python for philosophers Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-05-15 14:37 +0000
          Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> - 2013-05-15 21:55 +0200
            Re: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-05-15 16:55 -0700
              Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> - 2013-05-16 14:28 +0200
                Re: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-16 06:46 -0700
                  Re: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-17 00:00 +1000
                  Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> - 2013-05-16 22:06 +0200
                    Python for philosophers rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-19 10:46 -0700
                Re: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers llanitedave <llanitedave@veawb.coop> - 2013-05-16 22:42 -0700
          Re: Fwd: Fwd: Python for philosophers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-16 01:12 +0100
      Re: Fwd: Python for philosophers Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-05-14 10:55 -0400

#45272 — Re: Python for philosophers

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

I'm amazed with your feedback, even when due to a lack of knowledge I'm not
able to discuss some of them. I've been inspecting the stuff about
rewriting and that drew my attention to my first intuition of Python being
economic. Maybe could it support my impression about a thing thats behind
the language and got to do with condensing expressions until their end
point is reached. I'll absolutely read the book you recommended, coz looks
perfect. The dis module thing sounds and looks perfect too. Then again
something that was discussed here about Python being economic or not and
how or in which sense also threw some light on my first impression about
the language. Everything here is interesting and illustrative. Anyway, I
think that maybe I'm missing the point and I'm not being capable of
expressing the fundamentals of the reason why I'm here. I thought that the
most convenient thing to do is trying to keep myself attached to the
natural language I master (so to speak) and answer the a set of questions
that has been formulated. Maybe with this I'm helping myself.

Towards what purpose I'm just inspecting Python's environment?
Towards what purpose one would be just inspecting Chess' environment.
Eventually, I could end up playing; but that isn't told yet.

Do I want to learn to program?
I didn't say I've wanted to learn to program neither said the opposite.
I've said that I wasn't sure. And I said that because it's true. I'm not
sure. Sureness tends to proliferate at its highest rate when one is looking
to know. I'm looking to understand this something called Python. I've came
here as explorer. I know_about numbers of things that go_about a number of
topics of various supposedly most separated sciences. Since I sometimes
have the capacity for combining these knowledge units in a fancy way and
"realize" a great deal of things, is that I use a lot the verb "realize".
These constant instantiations of mine are like well done objects of real
true knowledge, made somehow by myself, by calling a method called
"understanding" from the class that corresponds and apply to any number of
memorized_data_objects that were previously instantiated in my mind coming
from my senses. For me this seems to look like what follows:

>>> understanding(combination(a_set_of _memorized_data_objects))

>>> def real_knowledge
>>>     understanding(a_set_of_memorized_data_objects)  # How does this
look?

I'm positive about that being told all the time about everything is pretty
much an economic issue, it just saves time, which in this environment saves
money, but at the cost of not playing with real knowledge that's verified
by each self (checksummed so to speak). Monkeys didn't developed our actual
brains just by being told about everything, but experiencing the phenomena,
that now we humans are talking about.

If not, then why do I care about Python programming?
In part is like a gut_decision. Internet is plenty of information about one
or another thing that one could be looking for, I've taken a look to Ruby
and Java and C++, but was a set of Python characteristics that really
matched with something inside of me. An entity named Python must be somehow
as a serpent. Don't forget that I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now
I'm not trying to follow the path of what's told but acting like the monkey
and pushing with my finger against the skin of the snake. Could be the case
that a stimulus_response method is being called inside of me. If that's the
case, objects instantiated by the stimulus_response method are the first
ones that can be considered scientific like, inside of me. Python also must
be an entity that's able to swallow, doesn't matter that it's chicken
object. Then it will throw whatever by its tail. For me that's interesting
and, in me, interestingness use to call the understanding method. Then I
realize that what's stated above implies that I can feed Python, and (here
starts the magic) see what type of whatever throws back by its tail. Then
I'll approach to smell any possible profit.

What do I aim to get out of this exercise?
Since actually I'm not running for programmer, my reason for understanding
Python must be sui generis and it is.

What do I think "Python's core" means?
More than thinking I'm just trying to guess what Python's core must be. Any
phenomena has a core. Maybe Python is economic as a snake and it is almost
all core. What would be the core of a digestive system covered with skin?
Considering Python as which in itself is all its truth and nothing but its
truth (that's to say thinking it without all its optionals) I tend to look
at it as if one of the most economic living creatures, and maybe a core in
itself.

One color note is that in the serpent class there's no attachment method.
Serpents are unemotional, they use to drop their eggs here and there
without a care. Serpent class lacks of empathy method.

What do I mean by "global definition"?
I mean one that would generic enough that includes myself.

What's an "entity"?
It could be any phenomena. I just wanted to frame something and draw the
attention to it, even if I'm still not in the position of label the
phenomena in a correct manner nor conceptualize it at all.

Why do my affirmation pre-suppose that exists something *more fundamental*
to programming that Python is for?
With this I don't mean more important but fundamental, that comes from
foundation, that's to say something meta or previous.

Aside from driving screws, what is the single and most basic use of a
screwdriver?
Aside the use that materialistic marketing tends to include in its eternal
propaganda, there's another use of whatever tool that I, the monkey, am
able to manipulate. My hand and my thought are engaged in the closest
relationship one can ever imagine. Manipulating, sets a foo in my brains,
foo that doesn't set the just listening to what someone would tell_about.
The case is I'm not able to get my material hands over Python, but that
doesn't mean that I must merely observe it as if it were non material. I'm
trying at least to emulate certain conditions to fill this gap. Modeling
something that could be called object_manipulation in order to understand
sounds crazy and maybe it is, it's paradoxical too, at the same time sounds
logic.


For my purposes, what is so special about interactive mode that I single it
out in this way?
Using the command line I'm setting myself closer to what I'm trying to
understand. That doesn't seem to be what one would consider doing wrong.

Why do I tend to believe that interactive mode isn't just like
non-interactive mode?
It seems that there are tiny differences between typing on the command line
and running a .py file. This drew my attention to the fact that being
economic has a lot to do with my purpose, so I decided to avoid the tiny
differences.

Why do I insist on the fact that "I must prevent myself from knowing too
much about a subject, that the best for me here is trying to fill the gaps,
mostly, using intuition?
This is an important question that I've tried to answer close to the start.

Why do I believe that intuition isn't greatly over-rated, and that most of
the time, isn't just an excuse for prejudice, and a way to avoid
understanding?
This is another good question that I've already tried to answer.

What do I think "to know" means? What do I think "to understand" means?
I've already tried to answer this.

What do I think Python's "axiomatic parameters" are, and how did I come to
that conclusion given that I know virtually nothing about Python?
I'm coping with this, as I've already stated, as if Python and Chess
inherit from Games. Games are known for being a particular kind of
phenomena, phenomena that not always but often includes something called
board, that's to say whatever in that game that remains immutable and
serves as its basic constant. With "axiomatic parameters" I've tried to
illustrate this immutable. That could be called perimeter or edge or
boundary, and even if all of those labels denote a limit, all of them,
unless for me, sound like... static. To think about Python in terms of
something that's static seems incorrect. "Axiomatic parameters" looked like
an initial limit that one can set, it just sounded accurate for a Python's
kind of thing.

Why do I maintain that Python could be something like chess.
>From the "trying to understand" point of view, everything can be considered
a game. In my opinion even science could be considered a game that could be
played in solitary mode.

 Am I getting closer to the point?


2013/5/11 Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com>

> Hi,
> this could be seen as an extravagant subject but that is not my original
> purpose. I still don't know if I want to become a programmer or not. At
> this moment I'm just inspecting the environment. I'm making my way to
> Python (and OOP in general) from a philosophical perspective or point of
> view and try to set the more global definition of Python's core as an
> "entity". In order to do that, and following Wittgenstein's indication
> about that the true meaning of words doesn't reside on dictionaries but in
> the use that we make of them, the starting question I make to myself about
> Python is: which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity
> it is? I mean, beside programming, what's the single and most basic result
> one can expect from "interacting" with it directly (interactive mode)? I
> roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic
> mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer types
> on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it,
> but expressed in the most economic way possible. That's to say, for
> example, if one types >>>1+1 Python reflects >>>2. When data appears
> between apostrophes, then the mirror reflects, again, the same but
> expressed in the most economic way possible (that's to say without the
> apostrophes).
>
> So, would it be legal (true) to define Python's core as an entity that
> mirrors whatever data one presents to it (or feed it with) showing back the
> most shortened expression of that data?
>
> Don't get me wrong. I can see the big picture and the amazing things that
> programmers write on Python, it's just that my question points to the
> lowest level of it's existence.
>
> Thanks a lot for your time.
>



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
¿Has leído «Las Novelas Prohibidas» <http://lasnovelasprohibidas.com/>?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#45282

On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:32:43 PM UTC-7, Citizen Kant wrote:

>An entity named Python must be 
> somehow as a serpent. 


Moe like a dead parrot, actually.

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

#45291

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>>From: llanitedave <llanitedave@veawb.coop>


>>On Monday, May 13, 2013 4:32:43 PM UTC-7, Citizen Kant wrote:

>>>An entity named Python must be
>>> somehow as a serpent.


llanitedave wrote:

>>>> Moe like a dead parrot, actually.


That's a good one! Even If doesn't lead to the fact that Python (so to
speak) use to give an answer.

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

#45294

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Case study (kind of)

Imagine that I use to explore with my mind a particular topic and I want to
map and model the mechanics of that exploration. That's mostly
metaphysical. I have a partner called Python with whom I must communicate
in Python. Which would be the basics that I must "know" in order to pass my
ideas to him properly. With this I mean using the units of my natural
language skills that match with his language, and using them in Python's
language context, in order to "program" at the highest level possible. It's
true that my program won't run yet but for me this is not an obstacle at
all, as when one writes a book one can start writing an index. For some
people, this index or highest level programming could look mostly like a
void thing coz lacks of the proper meat that a Python use to eat, and in a
sense they are right. But that's not the point. The point is that as soon
as I can I would start to dig deeper in that structure and build the proper
meat that my highest level labels are just naming. What if using my ability
to name what I actually think and recognize the path of whichever method I
call from my object of thinking, I'd like to start setting a context for
further immersion (inmersion with advanced mathematical notation an that?
Somebody commented about a couple of basic elements which I'm familiarized
with, like +, -, /, =, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0, (), etc. I know that Python has
a set of keywords, there's also a proper way in which one must express
wholes in Python, proper way which I'm not familiarized with but I'm able
to learn. Does this help?

For me, starting with Python is an affair of connecting with it. It's not
about including it in me or including me in it, but a kind of symbiotic
relationship. Unless for me, using my natural language as far as I can, but
constrained (formalized) by Python syntax in order to model using objects
and methods and classes that are still unable to run in Python (yet) seems
to be a good starting point for a symbiotic relationship. Understanding
might depend in our ability to set ourselves in the shoes of another.

Any clues? Since this is a real goal that I'm looking to accomplish, any
question that would clarify a bit more my states will be highly appreciated.

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

#45285

On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:

> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
> finger against the skin of the snake.

Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British 
comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.

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




-- 
Steven

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

#45290

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>

> On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:
>
> >> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
> >> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
> >> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
> >> finger against the skin of the snake.
>
> >Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
> >comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>
>
>
>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example
> very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of
> actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.
>

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

#45314

On 14/05/13 09:34, Citizen Kant wrote:
> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>
>>>> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
>>>> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
>>>> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
>>>> finger against the skin of the snake.
>>
>>> Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
>>> comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.
>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example
>> very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of
>> actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.
>>
>
Emanual Kant was a real piss ant
	Who was very rarely stable

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

#45348

On 2013-05-14, Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>
>> >> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
>> >> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
>> >> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
>> >> finger against the skin of the snake.
>>
>> >Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
>> >comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.
>>
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example
>> very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of
>> actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.

Firstly, watch your quoting, Steve D'Aprano didn't write that despite
your claim that he did.

Secondly, if a the person who named something tells you they named it
after A rather than B, what are you going to do other than "taken
because I've been told".  Are you claiming Guido lied about the source
of the name?

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! My life is a patio
                                  at               of fun!
                              gmail.com            

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

#45368

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2013-05-14, Citizen Kant <citizenkant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:32:43 +0200, Citizen Kant wrote:
>>
>> >> An entity named Python must be somehow as a serpent. Don't forget that
>> >> I'm with the freeing up of my memory, now I'm not trying to follow the
>> >> path of what's told but acting like the monkey and pushing with my
>> >> finger against the skin of the snake.
>>
>> >Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the British
>> >comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.
>>
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>
>>
>> I'm sorry to hear that. Mostly because, as an answer, seems to example
>> very well the "taken because I've been told how things are" kind of
>> actions, which is exactly the opposite of the point I'm trying to state.

Grant Edwards said:

>>>> Firstly, watch your quoting, Steve D'Aprano didn't write that despite
>>>> your claim that he did.

>>>> Secondly, if a the person who named something tells you they named it
>>>> after A rather than B, what are you going to do other than "taken
>>>> because I've been told".  Are you claiming Guido lied about the source
>>>> of the name?

Of course not. I'm just claiming that the tree (what's been told) is
preventing him from seeing the forest (what it is). If what's been told was
(put, by the very God of Uranus) that "the name's origin resides on a
string, that string's made up with the entire text of The Bible's Genesis
chapter with the word Python inserted not exactly in the middle but upper
on that tree", now I would be claiming the very same thing. As a matter of
class, the word python names first a python snake than a Monty Python,
which is 50% inspired by that python word, word that's been being
considered the given name of a particular kind of snake since times in
which Terry Gilliam wasn't even alive. Of course one always may want to
perform random hacking and turn tables just because and treat the word
python as a variable's name, setting that python equals Monty Python in
order to checkmate any given conversation. In that case we'll have to cope
then with the long lasting problem of being forced to name every python
snake as a Monty Python snake, due to the caprice of a programmer .

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

#45377

On May 16, 5:55 am, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a matter of
> class, the word python names first a python snake than a Monty Python,
> which is 50% inspired by that python word, word that's been being
> considered the given name of a particular kind of snake since times in
> which Terry Gilliam wasn't even alive.

"Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!" Or
to put it another way: context is important.

I find it both funny and sad that you think the name of the language
is preventing _others_ from seeing it as it is, when you're the only
one who seems to be fixated upon it.

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

#45420

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On May 16, 5:55 am, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a matter of
> class, the word python names first a python snake than a Monty Python,
> which is 50% inspired by that python word, word that's been being
> considered the given name of a particular kind of snake since times in
> which Terry Gilliam wasn't even alive.


alex23 wrote:
>> "Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!" Or
>> to put it another way: context is important.

>> I find it both funny and sad that you think the name of the language
>> is preventing _others_ from seeing it as it is, when you're the only
>> one who seems to be fixated upon it.

Maybe would be good if I share with you guys some basics of scientific
humor. As alex23 well pointed out, there's a kind of funny and sad behind
this typical human reaction. There's a lot of science observing you as a
plain humans, science has been being observing you for a long time, and
science says that people tend to laugh_at when their intuition realizes
that is in front of whatever phenomena that could undermine its thought
foundations. Believe it or not, laughing_at is mostly a sign that one's
afraid of losing his reason, a manifest sign of psychological fear. For
example, being informed about that in a few hours an asteroid named X-21
will crash your planet destroying it would also first make you "react"
neglecting it, then react with the typical smile_at the messenger, then if
this given messenger insists you would normally tend to "overreact" and
laugh_at the previously mentioned messenger, and all this will happen even
if the information brought to you says the truth. Same happens if one's mom
come one day and tells that the guy one always believed is his father is in
fact not, that there's a real father of yours that will remain forever lost
in the crowd with whom she once had an occasional sex intercourse inside
the bathroom of a bar. Then first you'll smile_at her, then if she keeps on
insisting with the funny/sad subject that alex23 well pointed out you'll
eventually start overreacting and laugh_at her. At this point, only if she
keeps on insisting with her truth until you're tired enough of overreacting
because overreacting won't ever change the fact that the guy you (need to)
believe is your biological father could keep on being whatever you please
but not that, she can reach the goal of making you understand.

I'm just an honest and polite guy asking you guys a couple of simple out of
the box questions that are important for me. Everyone here has the freedom
to keep on with their own assumptions and beliefs. If someone's interested
on thinking outside the box with me for the sake of helping me, that would
be great and highly appreciated. Thinking outside the box isn't just a
cheap thing since it's highly creative. Take note that being able to think
and write in English doesn't make you writers as, put, Faulkner. Same
happens with any other language, same happens with Python.

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

#45421

On May 16, 5:28 pm, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm just an honest and polite guy asking you guys a couple of simple out of
> the box questions that are important for me. Everyone here has the freedom
> to keep on with their own assumptions and beliefs. If someone's interested
> on thinking outside the box with me for the sake of helping me, that would
> be great and highly appreciated. Thinking outside the box isn't just a
> cheap thing since it's highly creative. Take note that being able to think
> and write in English doesn't make you writers as, put, Faulkner. Same
> happens with any other language, same happens with Python.

Let me quote your first post (OP):


> I roughly came to the idea that Python could be considered as an *economic
> mirror for data*, one that mainly *mirrors* the data the programmer types
> on its black surface, not exactly as the programmer originally typed it,
> but expressed in the most economic way possible.

And let me suggest that you follow your own advise -- Can you say what
you have to say in 1/10th the number of words? Ok if not 1/10th then
1/5th? 1-third?

If you can, you are on the way to appreciating something which you
almost came to and then lost in interminable prolixity, to wit:
> The starting question I make to myself about Python is:
> which is the single and most basic use of Python as the entity it is?

IOW a programmer is one who quickly and easily comes to the nub/core/
kernel/essence of a problem and as easily and adroitly shaves off the
irrelevant.

Else: (you cant /wont reduce your prolixity)
    You are bullshitting us and we are being trolled by you

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

#45422

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM, rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote:
> IOW a programmer is one who quickly and easily comes to the nub/core/
> kernel/essence of a problem and as easily and adroitly shaves off the
> irrelevant.

+1.

This is a fairly good description of a programmer's job. Of course,
that's the theoretical and pure programmer... a professional
programmer often has to:

* Figure out what the problem *is* based on an incomplet description
from an incompetent user via a bored telephone operator

* Traverse a morass of bureaucratic requirements and politicking just
to get the necessary hardware/software to do his work

* Deal with the Layer Eight firewalling against the implementation of
the solution he comes up with

* Attend inane meetings with bikeshedding non-technical people who
have some kind of authority over the project

* Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

But yeah, that's what a programmer is. :)

ChrisA

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

#45551

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

rusi said:

> And let me suggest that you follow your own advise -- Can you say what
> you have to say in 1/10th the number of words? Ok if not 1/10th then
> 1/5th? 1-third?

Thanks for the suggestion. I apologize for being that expansive; maybe you
are right about this. In my world less use to be less. I'll try to review
my doubts in order to express them in a much more concise format.

Of course this is not trolling at all, and I'm intrigued by how fast
someone can fall into that kind of conclusions...

I'm pretty much interested in the topic, so I'll review the stuff.

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

#45564

On May 17, 1:06 am, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> rusi said:
>
> > And let me suggest that you follow your own advise -- Can you say what
> > you have to say in 1/10th the number of words? Ok if not 1/10th then
> > 1/5th? 1-third?
>
> Thanks for the suggestion. I apologize for being that expansive; maybe you
> are right about this. In my world less use to be less. I'll try to review
> my doubts in order to express them in a much more concise format.
>
> Of course this is not trolling at all, and I'm intrigued by how fast
> someone can fall into that kind of conclusions...
>
> I'm pretty much interested in the topic, so I'll review the stuff.

You are doing well -- Glad to see that.
Except for the subject line. What's with the Fwd-loop?
Anyway I have attempted to correct it

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

#45469

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:28:11 AM UTC-7, Citizen Kant wrote:
> On May 16, 5:55 am, Citizen Kant <citizenk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
If someone's interested on thinking outside the box with me for the sake of helping me, that would be great and highly appreciated. 

Sorry, but you're asking for more than just thinking outside the box.  What you want would seem to require thinking from within the bottle.

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

#45381

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 15 May 2013 20:59, "Citizen Kant" <citizenkant@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course one always may want to perform random hacking and turn tables
just because and treat the word python as a variable's name, setting that
python equals Monty Python in order to checkmate any given conversation. In
that case we'll have to cope then with the long lasting problem of being
forced to name every python snake as a Monty Python snake, due to the
caprice of a programmer .
>

In Python all variables are actually labels. Labels refer to an object. An
object can be referred to by any amount of labels, but when no labels and
other references remain "pointed at" it, garbage collection destroys the
object. So if we set python equals Monty Python the actual python snake
will actually cease to exist.

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

#45296

> 2013/5/14 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info
> <mailto:steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>>

>      >Python is not named after the snake, but after Monty Python the
>     British
>      >comedy troupe. And they picked their name because it sounded funny.

That does not mean they were unaware that Pythons are snakes.
"requiring a "slippery-sounding" surname, they settled on "Python""

>      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python
>     <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web