Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #84181 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-01-22 15:30 +1100 |
| Last post | 2015-01-30 02:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 277 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-22 15:30 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:43 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 21:35 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 21:56 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 06:12 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 05:50 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 16:56 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-01-21 22:02 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-22 18:23 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 09:10 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 09:37 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 20:10 +1000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:09 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 10:37 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:44 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 11:06 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:24 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 01:57 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 02:13 +1100
Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 10:46 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:50 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 11:12 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 23:14 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 01:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 14:33 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 02:11 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 21:59 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 22:38 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-24 17:35 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-24 14:42 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-25 03:00 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 03:27 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-25 04:31 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2015-01-24 12:46 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 10:59 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-25 13:22 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-01-24 21:14 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 14:51 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-26 17:00 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 11:22 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 11:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 19:56 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 12:41 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 14:24 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:59 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-23 00:11 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 09:28 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 16:37 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 11:23 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 00:42 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 12:05 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:13 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:11 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 10:31 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:23 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-01-22 20:46 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 22:06 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-08 00:45 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-08 12:01 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-08 18:55 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-08 19:21 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-02-08 01:31 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-08 12:17 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 06:22 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-21 22:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-21 22:48 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 00:24 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 08:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-23 03:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 14:20 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 07:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 09:10 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:03 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 21:08 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 01:19 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 16:34 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:14 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:38 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 18:23 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 18:28 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 21:16 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 11:36 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 11:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-23 06:29 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 12:44 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 20:50 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 23:25 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 17:06 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 22:59 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 15:23 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 19:00 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-24 18:48 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 09:30 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 15:20 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 10:30 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 00:39 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-25 10:44 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-24 23:55 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 17:00 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-25 02:28 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-25 10:57 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-26 10:01 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 11:11 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2015-01-27 01:09 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 17:36 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:59 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 19:03 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-27 12:26 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-27 17:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-26 17:10 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-27 06:32 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-27 12:35 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-27 12:37 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 18:59 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 07:40 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 21:58 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:08 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 22:19 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:24 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 22:35 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-27 22:39 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:53 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-28 13:05 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-28 12:26 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 08:10 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 16:04 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-28 07:40 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 10:33 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-29 11:37 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 11:43 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 09:34 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 09:30 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-30 03:41 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-28 18:16 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 09:23 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-29 08:49 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-30 03:11 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-29 13:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:36 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-01 14:06 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:42 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 14:50 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 12:34 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-28 12:36 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-29 09:08 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-30 02:56 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-29 13:23 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-31 22:56 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 01:53 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-01 14:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 14:46 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-01-31 20:31 -0800
dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 21:36 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-02-01 00:12 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:20 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:55 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 10:31 -0700
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 19:52 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 20:04 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 20:22 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-02 17:55 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 18:15 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 23:41 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 23:06 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 23:09 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 00:58 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 05:00 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-03 01:07 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 01:24 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-03 12:38 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 21:49 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-03 13:27 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 10:12 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-03 23:28 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 11:43 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-02-04 01:32 +0200
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-04 10:39 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-02-03 23:41 +0000
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-02-03 15:55 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 13:30 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 12:57 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 19:04 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 04:40 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 10:39 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 15:04 -0700
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 18:31 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-04 09:19 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 13:30 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-04 15:58 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 19:22 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 19:22 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 05:02 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-03 01:20 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-03 01:25 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-04 00:32 +1300
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Vito De Tullio <vito.detullio@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 06:26 +0100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 04:27 -0800
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 23:43 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 07:45 +1100
Re: dunder-docs (was Python is DOOMED! Again!) Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-02-01 12:51 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-02-01 11:35 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-31 22:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-01-31 22:54 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:34 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 04:09 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 14:02 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 14:27 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 14:52 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 13:03 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-02 18:46 +1300
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 03:31 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2015-02-01 09:45 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-02-02 18:19 +1300
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 16:38 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 22:07 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 17:16 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 22:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-02-02 18:18 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 23:43 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-02-02 04:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-02-01 22:12 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-29 10:53 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-29 18:54 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 19:50 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 13:00 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-28 12:09 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 22:57 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 05:33 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 21:22 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 13:43 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:56 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 14:31 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 14:32 -0600
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 13:08 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-01-22 23:25 +0200
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! random832@fastmail.us - 2015-01-22 13:41 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:10 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 20:53 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:03 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 01:40 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 17:31 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 14:53 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-23 06:38 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 02:00 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-24 16:51 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 09:04 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-24 12:15 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-24 14:40 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 12:00 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-01-22 17:14 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-01-22 22:34 -0500
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-22 19:05 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 19:07 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-01-23 15:51 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 19:09 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Emile van Sebille <emile@fenx.com> - 2015-01-22 13:56 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:08 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-01-22 15:24 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:12 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 19:11 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 14:52 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 21:06 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 16:33 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> - 2015-01-22 14:27 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 15:47 -0700
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-01-22 23:54 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-01-23 10:22 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> - 2015-01-23 01:44 +0100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-01-23 06:33 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-01-23 01:07 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Tony the Tiger <tony@tiger.invalid> - 2015-01-23 18:08 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-29 22:57 +0000
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-01-30 10:17 +1100
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! Chris Kaynor <ckaynor@zindagigames.com> - 2015-01-29 15:25 -0800
Re: Python is DOOMED! Again! MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-01-30 02:11 +0000
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-27 11:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c6da50$0$12993$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84610 |
BartC wrote:
> how do you represent a raise of 10% exactly if
> not with binary floating point?
In Python today, the best solution is probably to use Decimals:
from decimal import Decimal
raise = Decimal("0.1")
But the traditional solution is to track money in cents, or a fixed fraction
of a cent, using integers, and do everything in integer maths. That has the
disadvantage that division always truncates, but if you care about that you
can easily write your own division-with-round-to-nearest function.
Or use Decimal, which handles rounding correctly and flexibly.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87egqm7h3e.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #84230 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: > Since the "language wars" of the 1990s, dynamic languages have won. Are you kidding? Nothing has won, the wars are still going on, and dynamic and static typing both have their winning use cases and will be around forever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17991.1421956621.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84259 |
On 22/01/2015 19:25, Paul Rubin wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: >> Since the "language wars" of the 1990s, dynamic languages have won. > > Are you kidding? Nothing has won, the wars are still going on, and > dynamic and static typing both have their winning use cases and will be > around forever. > Unless you offer a new language that is absolutely guaranteed to have the best of both worlds, in which case there'd be major flame wars over whether you'd call it dynatically or stamically typed. -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 12:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c1a6e8$0$12996$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84259 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: >> Since the "language wars" of the 1990s, dynamic languages have won. > > Are you kidding? Nothing has won, the wars are still going on, and > dynamic and static typing both have their winning use cases and will be > around forever. No, I stand by my statement, on the basis that Bob Martin said it and he's smarter than me and he actually was a participant so he knows what he's talking about *wink* In one sense, "language wars" still go on. Conflict never really ends, it just shifts from place to place, and there will always be "brush wars", like Pascal versus PL/P, Pascal versus C, C versus Java, Perl versus Python, Python versus Ruby, etc. But the 1990s idea was that there ought to be One Language To Rule Them All, that there should be a single language which is the optimal language for every programming task. The 90s brought that to a head, with Smalltalk, Java, C, and Lisp all contenders. Today the nature of the wars has tended to change. Naturally there are still clueless n00bs who insist that there must be One True Language for everything but the wars today are more about the full technology stack (e.g. C#/.NET/IIS/Windows versus Java/J2EE/Apache/Solaris) rather than specifically about the language. So in the sense that people still argue about languages, you are correct that "language wars" continue, but Martin's specific claim was that dynamic languages *as a group* won the war in the sense that all popular static languages now include dynamic features, while dynamic languages don't include static features: Popular dynamic languages include: - Python - PHP - Javascript None of them can really be characterised as having "static" features in any meaningful sense. (The introduction of type-hints to Python won't change that, any more than documenting the types in a docstring has changed it.) Popular static languages include: - Java has reflection and runtime generics - C# has the "dynamic" keyword which is based on .Net's reflection - C++ has dynamic dispatch and virtual functions Go is an interesting (counter-?) example: it is a static language almost entirely lacking in dynamic features. From the Go FAQs: "The only way to have dynamically dispatched methods is through an interface. Methods on a struct or any other concrete type are always resolved statically." http://golang.org/doc/faq#How_do_I_get_dynamic_dispatch_of_methods (Go may have other dynamic features, but I am unaware of them.) But Go is lacking many other features (exceptions, generics, variant types, even basic numeric coercions. Go is either going to revolutionise programming or it will end up just another niche language. I suspect the latter. The point is, despite maverick languages like Go, mainstream static languages have developed dynamic features, while dynamic languages have not reduced their dynamicism to become more static. Instead, dynamic languages are developing Just In Time compilers to use *runtime* type information for efficiency (e.g. Mercury, PHP, Python, Javascript all do this). -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 14:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17998.1421961926.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84230 |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, there's the strange decision to implement type hints for
>> local variables # comment lines. I have an hard time wrapping my head
>> around this one. Really, comments!?
>
> Yes, really. There is plenty of prior art for machine-meaningful comments:
>
> - mypy uses it, and it works fine
> - Pascal uses {$ ...} compiler directives
> - Unix uses a special hash-bang #! comment in the first line to
> specify the executable that runs the script
> - Python supports a special encoding declaration using #
> - doctest uses comments for directives
> - HTML puts code (Javascript usually) inside of comments
> - JMSAssert for Java uses comments for design-by-contract assertions
Perhaps even more relevant to PEP 484:
- The Closure compiler for Javascript uses JSDoc tags in comments for
static typing and analysis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 18:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a14188d8-84c1-496a-b0f3-cce0935ab4b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84278 |
On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 2:55:38 AM UTC+5:30, Ian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> Meanwhile, there's the strange decision to implement type hints for
> >> local variables # comment lines. I have an hard time wrapping my head
> >> around this one. Really, comments!?
> >
> > Yes, really. There is plenty of prior art for machine-meaningful comments:
> >
> > - mypy uses it, and it works fine
> > - Pascal uses {$ ...} compiler directives
> > - Unix uses a special hash-bang #! comment in the first line to
> > specify the executable that runs the script
> > - Python supports a special encoding declaration using #
> > - doctest uses comments for directives
> > - HTML puts code (Javascript usually) inside of comments
> > - JMSAssert for Java uses comments for design-by-contract assertions
>
> Perhaps even more relevant to PEP 484:
>
> - The Closure compiler for Javascript uses JSDoc tags in comments for
> static typing and analysis.
I have not studied this carefully... so no opinion
However Peyton Jones is known to have said that for Haskell,
Haskell is on a Damas-Milner cusp -- basically if haskell's type system
becomes any more sophisticated, then automatic type inference becomes undecidable
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=cis_papers
Personally I find the predecessor of Haskell, gofer, prettier than Haskell
precisely because Haskell's type system has become too 'clever':
See my answer
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25855507/are-typeclasses-essential
What has all this to do with python?? Dunno
Just that the 'optionality' of type-hinting may not be quite straightforward
================
PS Ian for a hot thread like this its good to put quotes carefully
You are quoting Steven quoting somebody -- dunno who that somebody is
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 00:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87oapp6hnd.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #84301 |
Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes: > However Peyton Jones is known to have said that for Haskell, > Haskell is on a Damas-Milner cusp He's talking about the hairy recent stuff that edge Haskell towards dependent types. E.g. type families (type-level functions) plus type-level numbers, etc. I don't think anyone has suggested pressing Python type hints to anywhere near such lengths. Really, I think the examples to look to are Erlang (Dialyzer) and Racket (Typed Racket), not Haskell. Clojure's static types are adapted from Racket's and should work in about the same way. These (unlike Haskell) are all examples of optional static types, where you can mix static and dynamic code or leave out all the annotations if you want. I have to say that my personal experience with the Erlang dialyzer wasn't all that great, but I was new to it and I think it's probably more effective when used the "right" way, i.e. by people who are more used to it than I was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 09:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18038.1422030557.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84301 |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > PS Ian for a hot thread like this its good to put quotes carefully > You are quoting Steven quoting somebody -- dunno who that somebody is I include quote that only for context to Steven's quote. Since I'm not replying to it, I don't care who wrote it, and if I don't care, then why should the reader? So I'm sorry, but I'm more likely to simply delete that context than mess around with multiple levels of attribution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-23 16:37 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <54c1de14$0$13000$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #84278 |
Ian Kelly wrote: > Perhaps even more relevant to PEP 484: > > - The Closure compiler for Javascript uses JSDoc tags in comments for > static typing and analysis. Nice! -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 11:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87iofy7h7i.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #84207 |
Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> writes: > Strangely enough though I was taught from the early beginning that > once I start to care about types in Python, I strayed from the > pythonic way. That's a weird concept. You always have to care about types. It's just that with a bit of discipline combined with unit tests to catch any errors, you can keep the flow of types through the program simple enough that you can get by without static analysis. That frees your style in some ways and cramps it in others. https://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/ gets posted here now and then, and is still well worth reading.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 00:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b631cc7a-2f2a-4269-9a0d-7228103f1852@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84204 |
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 1:23:40 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > The point isn't that there are no other alternative > interpretations possible, or that annotations are the only > syntax imaginable, but that they're not hard to guess what > they mean, and if you can't guess, they're not hard to > learn and remember. That's highly subjective. Could you please stop licking Guido's boots long enough to take a whiff of what the hell you're shoveling? Is being teachers pet so important that you're willing to turn off a vast majority of new Python programmers? How much longer can this hemorrhaging go on Steven? Python is the only thing that is pure in the programming world. The only language that offers the cleanest and most intuit-able syntax, AND YOU"RE JUST GOING TO THROW IT ALL AWAY SO YOU CAN BE A LAPDOG OF SATAN? Everybody better listen up, and you'd better listen up good folks. Because we've only got a short time to act before this monstrosity is enacted. You need send Guido emails (and lots of them) and tell him how destructive this is going to be to our community. Stop being cowards, it's time to put the big boy pants on. If you don't act now, then don't bother complaining later. Python is dangling by a thin thread, and this is your last chance to save everything we've worked for. All the lines of code we've written won't mean spit if the language takes a swan dive into obscurity!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 12:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87h9vj6sgr.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #84212 |
Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com>: > Python is the only thing that is pure in the programming world. The > only language that offers the cleanest and most intuit-able syntax, > AND YOU"RE JUST GOING TO THROW IT ALL AWAY SO YOU CAN BE A LAPDOG OF > SATAN? I think the SATAN is in the optional type declarations, not in the particular syntax chosen. Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 21:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17967.1421921620.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84216 |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:05 PM, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote: > Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com>: > >> Python is the only thing that is pure in the programming world. The >> only language that offers the cleanest and most intuit-able syntax, >> AND YOU"RE JUST GOING TO THROW IT ALL AWAY SO YOU CAN BE A LAPDOG OF >> SATAN? > > I think the SATAN is in the optional type declarations, not in the > particular syntax chosen. So optional type declarations are officially "the details" now? :) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17979.1421950304.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84216 |
Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote: > I think the SATAN is in the optional type declarations, not in the > particular syntax chosen. Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 10:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1a194e0a09cf8d2044e268d5585@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84212 |
Rick, > Python is the only thing that is pure in the programming world. The > only language that offers the cleanest and most intuit-able syntax, > AND YOU"RE JUST GOING TO THROW IT ALL AWAY SO YOU CAN BE A LAPDOG OF > SATAN? Nonsense. You are just used to it. I can read C with the same feeling of intuitiveness as you do Python. There's nothing inherently more intuitive about python and I just wished that meme died already. Besides it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some people, for intance, aren't all that comfortable about python white space as much as many die-hard pythonists would like to admit. It's not even a feature that gained traction on programming languages that came after python. > If you don't act now, then don't bother complaining later. Python is > dangling by a thin thread, and this is your last chance to save > everything we've worked for. All the lines of code we've written won't > mean spit if the language takes a swan dive into obscurity! PEP 484 just becomes silly when it comes to the section where it discusses whether type hints are pythonic. If that ridiculous paragraph reflects how we are looking today at the inclusion of new features, than I agree python is walking a dangerous road. But that also means Type Hints aren't the real problem here. We have a much bigger problem about the programming language principles and phylosophy. In all honesty though, I never cared much about the ideals and zens in programming languages, especially ones want to want to adopt a batteries-included philosophy. Always seemed to me like nonsense talk. My experience taught me that you can't just have the latter without eventually breaking the former. 'import this' always read to me like wishful thinking. Python isn't going anywhere towards obscurity. Not at least until a competiting language comes (it hasn't yet). I agree though that Python complexity has increased greatly over the years and this isn't showing any signs of stopping. And that is exactly the type of thing that promotes the birth of a new and better programming language. And, interestingly enough, that is always a good thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 12:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df42ff5a-e4fe-4129-9278-1a5eaa6993b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #84220 |
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 4:32:04 AM UTC-6, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> Rick,
>
> > Python is the only thing that is pure in the programming
> > world. The only language that offers the cleanest and
> > most intuit-able syntax, AND YOU"RE JUST GOING TO THROW
> > IT ALL AWAY [...] ?
>
> Nonsense. You are just used to it. I can read C with the
> same feeling of intuitiveness as you do Python. There's
> nothing inherently more intuitive about python and I just
> wished that meme died already. Besides it's all in the eye
> of the beholder.
And is *YOUR* eye the only eye in this universe? A concert
pianist could say the same about a piece of music that only
a handful of people in the world could play!
YOU'RE IGNORING WHAT PYTHON WAS, AND IS MEANT TO BE!
Python was not created to be some esoteric language that
sadistic professors could drop on students heads like a
grand piano from a third story window, *NO*, python was
meant to be a gateway to intuitive programming bliss.
Python was meant to be the "lingua franca" of the
Programming world. The idea was to cut out the noisy syn
taxes that plagued other language and thereby allow the
programmer to focus on solving problems and writing
algorithms.
As the complexity of a syntax increases, so too does the
work required to comprehend it. If you like C so much then
go back to writing C code, Python fills a niche, and we must
remain committed to our founding goals.
THIS "TYPE HINTING" IDEA HAS TO BE THE SINGLE WORSE CASE
OF FEATURE CREEP I'VE EVER HEARD OF!
> PEP 484 just becomes silly when it comes to the section
> where it discusses whether type hints are pythonic. If
> that ridiculous paragraph reflects how we are looking
> today at the inclusion of new features, than I agree
> python is walking a dangerous road.
"IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS HARD TO EXPLAIN, IT'S A BAD
IDEA."
> But that also means Type Hints aren't the real problem
> here. We have a much bigger problem about the programming
> language principles and philosophy.
I don't understand???
Now it seems you are agreeing with me?
Are you sure you've given this issue it's due consideration?
And have you weighed that consideration from an objective
perspective? I think any rational person would agree that
Python is more important than our personal needs, wants, or
desires.
> In all honesty though, I never cared much about the ideals
> and zens in programming languages, especially ones want to
> want to adopt a batteries-included philosophy.
And yet you're here, using the Python language who's
*SECOND-PHILOSOPHICAL-GOAL* was to provide a large stdlib.
Why are you torturing yourself by using a language you
obviously don't like? But more importantly, why are you
attempting to torture everyone else by encouraging the
demise of this fine language? At best this idea will violate
Python's founding philosophy, at worst it will be the end of
something that brought light into a dark world.
> Always seemed to me like nonsense talk. My experience
> taught me that you can't just have the latter without
> eventually breaking the former. 'import this' always read
> to me like wishful thinking.
The "python zen" will always be under attack because it's a
difficult set of rules to follow, but despite the practical
application of the rules, the philosphy they describe is
*SOUND*!
Many times killing an opponent may be easier than attempting
to compromise with him, but we don't sacrifice logical
foundations just to appease every Python programmer who
wants Python to be more like X, Y, or Z! (or REXX!)
What's next? Are we going to cow-tow to the lispers and
adopt "nesting to infinity" just so we can go around
blabbing about how easy a lisp interpreter is to write,
never mind that writing any *REAL* lisp code is an exercise
in *EYEBALL-PARSING-ASININITY*!
How about taking after the Perl philosophy of peppering the
syntax with punctuation until the very sight of it causes an
intellectual sneeze fest!
Not enough for you? Heck, why allow Dijkstra to rest-in-
peace in an upward facing position when we could resurrect
GOTO!
Need more examples?
> Python isn't going anywhere towards obscurity. Not at
> least until a competiting language comes (it hasn't yet).
> I agree though that Python complexity has increased
> greatly over the years and this isn't showing any signs of
> stopping. And that is exactly the type of thing that
> promotes the birth of a new and better programming
> language. And, interestingly enough, that is always a good
> thing.
I agree. The birth of new languages is always a good thing,
(i'm a huge fan of evolution if you have not noticed!), and
i am fully aware that Python is not going to live forever.
Sooner or later someone will see the deficiencies of Python
and think: "Hey, i can do better!", but that time is not
now. Python still has a firm grip on the niche of
"intuitive syntax with batteries included" and we have a
*DUTY* to every potential programmer to ensure that Python
will be available for them when they need it.
YOU CANNOT BENEFIT EVOLUTION BY COMMITTING SUICIDE!
============================================================
SUMMARY
============================================================
You argue that readability is a relative construct, and you
are correct, but what you fail to acknowledge is that while
the ability to read noisy syntaxes improves with practice,
the comprehensive abilities of neophytes will always remain
constant. Python was built for the sake of the neophytes,
not to suffer the whims of the guru!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 20:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.17996.1421959631.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #84267 |
On 2015-01-22 20:23, Rick Johnson wrote: > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 4:32:04 AM UTC-6, Mario Figueiredo wrote: >> Rick, >> >> > Python is the only thing that is pure in the programming >> > world. The only language that offers the cleanest and >> > most intuit-able syntax, AND YOU"RE JUST GOING TO THROW >> > IT ALL AWAY [...] ? >> >> Nonsense. You are just used to it. I can read C with the >> same feeling of intuitiveness as you do Python. There's >> nothing inherently more intuitive about python and I just >> wished that meme died already. Besides it's all in the eye >> of the beholder. > > And is *YOUR* eye the only eye in this universe? A concert > pianist could say the same about a piece of music that only > a handful of people in the world could play! > > YOU'RE IGNORING WHAT PYTHON WAS, AND IS MEANT TO BE! > > Python was not created to be some esoteric language that > sadistic professors could drop on students heads like a > grand piano from a third story window, *NO*, python was > meant to be a gateway to intuitive programming bliss. > > Python was meant to be the "lingua franca" of the > Programming world. The idea was to cut out the noisy syn > taxes that plagued other language and thereby allow the > programmer to focus on solving problems and writing > algorithms. > If you want to know why Python was created, ask its creator: """My original motivation for creating Python was the perceived need for a higher level language in the Amoeba project. I realized that the development of system administration utilities in C was taking too long. ... So there was a need for a language that would "bridge the gap between C and the shell." For a long time, this was Python’s main catchphrase.""" http://python-history.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/personal-history-part-1-cwi.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-22 22:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2f2b84a3b2318e2e989687@nntp.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #84267 |
In article <df42ff5a-e4fe-4129-9278-1a5eaa6993b3@googlegroups.com>, rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com says... > python was meant to be a gateway to intuitive programming bliss. > Python was meant to be the "lingua franca" of the Programming world. And it failed miserably on both instances. Like any other programming language before and after it which pretended to be the one stop solution to world hunger. No. Python most important goal is to solve software requirements, like any programming language should. Intuitiveness, simplicity, easy of use, expressiveness, and all the other waiving flags you like to carry, are secondary-only goals. You sacrifice them for the first goal if they get in the way. It's the way of any evolving language. > You argue that readability is a relative construct, and you > are correct, but what you fail to acknowledge is that while > the ability to read noisy syntaxes improves with practice, > the comprehensive abilities of neophytes will always remain > constant. Python was built for the sake of the neophytes, > not to suffer the whims of the guru! I couldn't give a rat's arse about neophytes and I consider myself a beginner in the world of python. I'm more interested in having a language that can solve my problems. Expressiveness, simplicity, intuitiveness, all are lofty goals. But they are always going to be limited by the feature set of your language. And as it grows, as it tries to incorporate more and more features in order to become more and more capable of handling all types of modern software requirements, it will loose some of that expressivness, some of that simplicity and some of that intuitiveness. It's just how it is with any programming language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-08 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54d6b1a0$0$6917$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #84195 |
In article <mailman.17951.1421906568.18130.python-list@python.org>,
Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On 01/21/2015 08:30 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>
>> So what is this unspeakable, nightmarish, cryptic abomination going to look
>> like? Here's an example from PEP 484:
>>
>> def greeting(name: str) -> str:
>> return 'Hello ' + name
>>
>>
>> I don't know about you, but I think anyone who cannot read that and intuit
>> that argument `name` is a string and the return result is also a string
>
>There is nothing inherently intuitive about that syntax. The : makes it
>look like a dictionary (but it isn't) and the
>-> looks like a pointer to something (but it isn't).
It is too bad `` -> '' as a token is now taken.
I wanted to propose to replace the ternary syntax
lambda .. : ..
by a regular operator
.. -> ..
then we could have
x -> x**2
instead of
lambda x : x**2
Moreover the value of a function would be a lambda
not
def square(x): x**2
but
square = x->x**2
or
mult = x,y ->
result = 0
for i in range(x):
result +=y
return result
doing away with the ternary operator def
def .. ( .. ) : ..
replacing it by two binary operators, one of them (=) being thoroughly familiar.
It is horrifying to see that def is now becoming a quaternary operator
def .. ( .. ) --> .. : ..
Also name:str is the wrong order.
I would propose to use :: to prevent confusion.
Then I would allow <type>:: in front of all objects everywhere
to trigger a warning if at that point the objects is not of the right type.
I think it is quite natural that float: sets the expectation
that a float is coming.
float:: x = get_some_crap_from_an obscure_windows_box( a, B, c,
a_lighter, some_list, REAL_ISB_MASK )
>
>> is probably going to have bigger troubles with Python than just type-hinting.
>
>Yup, true -- I do find writing meta-classes takes extra work. ;)
>
>--
>~Ethan~
>
>
>
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>[Attachment type=application/pgp-signature, name=signature.asc]
>-=-=-=-=-=-
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-02-08 12:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.18538.1423357272.18130.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #85344 |
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > def square(x): x**2 > but > square = x->x**2 > > or > > mult = x,y -> > result = 0 > for i in range(x): > result +=y > return result > > doing away with the ternary operator def > > def .. ( .. ) : .. > > replacing it by two binary operators, one of them (=) being thoroughly familiar. Thing is, "def" isn't just assignment. It also takes the name and stores it in the object. There's a distinct and visible difference between: def square(x): return x**2 and def func(x): return x**2 square = func So if you were to use your alternate syntax everywhere, you'd basically be throwing away all the benefits of def over lambda. Now, you may well be able to justify and implement an alternative for lambda that works this way. (And it's probably already been done, too. Maybe using the actual symbol λ rather than ->.) But I don't think you'll get anywhere with def. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web