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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #6234 > unrolled thread

Re: Beginner needs advice

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: Beginner needs advice "Colin J. Williams" <cjw@ncf.ca> - 2011-05-25 08:57 -0400
    Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 09:40 -0500
      Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-27 15:52 +0000
        Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 15:40 -0500
          Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 09:09 +1000
            Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 20:02 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2011-05-27 18:30 -0700
                Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-28 14:21 -0500
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 05:47 +1000
                    Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-28 21:02 -0500
                      Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 12:26 +1000
                      Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-29 14:09 +0000
                        Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 19:32 -0500
                          Re: Beginner needs advice "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2011-05-31 01:58 +0100
                            Re: Beginner needs advice Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-30 22:20 -0700
                              Re: Beginner needs advice Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-05-31 15:48 +1000
                                Re: Beginner needs advice MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-05-31 17:59 +0100
                                Re: Beginner needs advice Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-31 10:22 -0700
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-30 21:34 -0400
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2011-05-30 21:47 -0400
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-05-30 22:20 -0700
                          Re: Beginner needs advice Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2011-05-30 22:35 -0700
              Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-28 05:40 +0000
          Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-28 06:15 +0000
            Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-28 21:33 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 02:06 -0600
                Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 19:43 -0500
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 19:16 -0600
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 12:27 +1000
                    Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 22:02 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice Jason Tackaberry <tack@urandom.ca> - 2011-05-29 15:28 -0400
                Re: Beginner needs advice rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 16:00 -0700
                  Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 09:31 +1000
                Re: Beginner needs advice harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-30 19:44 -0500
              Re: Beginner needs advice rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 15:15 -0700
              Re: Beginner needs advice Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 20:56 +0300
              Re: Beginner needs advice Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 12:29 -0600
              Re: Beginner needs advice Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 21:42 +0300
          Re: Beginner needs advice Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 08:46 +0300
        Re: Beginner needs advice Thomas Rachel <nutznetz-0c1b6768-bfa9-48d5-a470-7603bd3aa915@spamschutz.glglgl.de> - 2011-05-28 07:06 +0200
          Re: Beginner needs advice Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-28 08:38 +0200
            Re: Beginner needs advice Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-28 08:42 +0200
            Re: Beginner needs advice Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-28 16:44 +1000
            Re: Beginner needs advice Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-28 08:13 +0000
          Re: Beginner needs advice "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net> - 2011-05-28 08:38 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#6234 — Re: Beginner needs advice

On 25-May-11 02:22 AM, Lew Schwartz wrote:
> So, if I read between the lines correctly, you recommend Python 3? Does
> the windows version install with a development environment?
>

It would be safer to stick with Python 2.7 initially and then consider 
the transition to 3.2 later.

No, there is not more than Idle.

PyScripter provides an excellent development environment.  See: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyScripter

Colin W.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6395

Colin J. Williams wrote:
> It would be safer to stick with Python 2.7 initially and then consider
> the transition to 3.2 later.

I must disagree with Colin's statement. If you are a complete beginner 
with Python... then there is going to a learning curve for you... and 
that curve should be 3.2---  period.

It is true that some modules are not ready for 3.x, and it is also true 
that many installed systems (probably most) do not have 3.x installed.

But that is not the point. The point is that 3.x is completely 
incompatible with 2.x (some call it a dialect, but that is a lie). 
Python3 is the future of the language, and if you're new to Python, then 
learn 3.x, move forward and don't look back... seriously.


kind regards,
m harris

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

#6404

On Fri, 27 May 2011 09:40:53 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:

> 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x (some call it a dialect, 
> but that is a lie).

"Completely incompatible"? A "lie"?


import math
import random
my_list = [3, 5, 7, 9]
n = random.choice(my_list)
if n%3:
    func = math.sin
else:
    func = math.cos

y = func(math.pi/n)*10
L = ['spam']*(int(y))
for item in L:
    print(item)


is valid syntax in every version of Python from 1.5 to 3.2, and it does 
the same thing in all of them. Would you care to revise your claims?



-- 
Steven

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

#6430

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Would you care to revise your claims?

No.


You have erected a straw-man... once again.


Most 2.x code *will not* run correctly in 3.x/  Most of the best 
improvements and enhancements of 3.x will not back-port to below 2.7, 
and almost none of them will back-port before 2.6 (class decorations, 
for instance).

Some interfaces have changed! cmp keyword, but lets not bring that up 
again....

Many syntaxes have changed or have disappeared...

... and some commands (like reload for instance) either don't exist in 
3.x, or have been hidden, replaced, or changed...


All of these things are for the better, I must add.  But, the point is 
that 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x in real ways.  Arguing that 
this is *not true* because you are able to create a code block that just 
happens 'to work' in all versions (and that hasn't been verified yet) 
does not in *any* way 'prove' that 3.x is a compatible dialect---  far 
from it... its a straw-man argument.


kind regards,

m harris

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

#6438

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 6:40 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote:
> Most 2.x code *will not* run correctly in 3.x/  Most of the best
> improvements and enhancements of 3.x will not back-port to below 2.7, and
> almost none of them will back-port before 2.6 (class decorations, for
> instance).

What's with the "below 2.7"? If you're comparing 3.x and 2.x, wouldn't
it be most plausible to compare 3.2 and 2.7?

And, the biggest reason for 2.x code not running on 3.x is probably
the print function. (Guess made without any data beyond my own
personal corpus of Python 2 code.) That's something that can be
corrected by, oh, I dunno, the 2to3 translator maybe? And the
__future__ import makes 2.6+ work the same way as 3.x.

> All of these things are for the better, I must add.  But, the point is that
> 3.x is completely incompatible with 2.x in real ways.  Arguing that this is
> *not true* because you are able to create a code block that just happens 'to
> work' in all versions (and that hasn't been verified yet) does not in *any*
> way 'prove' that 3.x is a compatible dialect---  far from it... its a
> straw-man argument.

You're correct that one code block does not prove the point. But your
argument is just as flimsy. To say that "most" 2.x code is
incompatible with 3.x is to deny the 2to3 utility, and you're ignoring
the people who deliberately write code that can cross-execute on
either version - which is really not that difficult, if you take some
care and use __future__ directives.

Chris Angelico

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

#6442

Chris Angelico wrote:
> To say that "most" 2.x code is
> incompatible with 3.x is to deny the 2to3 utility,

    Oh, yes absolutely. Please don't misunderstand... anyone... I'm not 
saying that code cannot be migrated... migration can usually occur 
between incompatible releases and and between languages!... all I'm 
saying is that 3.x is not compatible with 2.x code (completely not 
compatible), and if you're a noob there is no reason to learn 2.x/ 
Learn 3.x and pickup whatever needs to be gained from 2.x if it comes 
up... we're talking about learning python as a newbie--- go with 3.x and 
never look back... seriously...


> and you're ignoring
> the people who deliberately write code that can cross-execute on
> either version - which is really not that difficult,


That's what I do... but I'm not a newbie. I have existing code that 
needs to be migrated, and I have an interest in creating research apps 
that will run on existing 2.x systems but will be ready and waiting for 
the time when the system moves to 3.x.  I need to know both 2.6 and 3.2 
very well. And I'll be honest about this, it is very frustrating. There 
are literally hundreds of changes and variations (its all in the 
details).  Many Pythonists are not honest about this... because they 
don't want to scare folks away from 3.x, and I don't really blame them. 
But the true picture is that 3.x is (way better) and completely 
incompatible with 2.x.   Lying about this isn't helpful to anyone coming 
on board with Python. Just tell them the truth...


kind regards,

m harris

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

#6443

harrismh777 wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> To say that "most" 2.x code is
>> incompatible with 3.x is to deny the 2to3 utility,
> 
> all I'm 
> saying is that 3.x is not compatible with 2.x code (completely not 
> compatible)
> 
>> and you're ignoring
>> the people who deliberately write code that can cross-execute on
>> either version - which is really not that difficult,
> 
> That's what I do... 
 >
> Lying about this isn't helpful to anyone coming 
> on board with Python. Just tell them the truth...

Um -- how can you have on the one hand "completely not compatible" and 
on the other "code that can cross-execute on either version"?

~Ethan~

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

#6485

Ethan Furman wrote:
> Um -- how can you have on the one hand "completely not compatible" and
> on the other "code that can cross-execute on either version"?

Great question ! .. .it has to do with education.

... if you learn 2.x (only) and attempt to program on the 3.x platform, 
(without helps, education, migration tools, etc) you will fail... and 
you will be frustrated. Why? 3.x is not compatible with 2.x knowledge.

    If you learn 3.2 (only) and attempt to program on 2.x you will fail, 
and you will be frustrated. Why?   Because the two languages are 
different and incompatible.

Now then, can you learn both?...  sure.    Can you migrate one to the 
other with enough knowledge and effort?... yup.   Is it possible (with 
enough cleverness) to write code that will run on "both" without 
modification... yes...   Are the two languages compatible?    No!


Where this really counts of course is real-world apps. It is relatively 
easy to write trivial code blocks that demonstrate that nothing has 
changed in 3.x/   ... and they are *all* misleading.  The truth is that 
hundreds of details have changed making the two 'versions' actually 
different languages.


If I use the '89 version (1) K&R to write a C program,  and compile it 
on the current gcc without mods it will run.  If I use the 2.5 python 
manual to write a python program and try to run it on 3.2 it will fail 
(for many, many reasons).  This is my definition of completely 
incompatible. The two languages are different; period.

The problem is that they "look" similar.     :)



kind regards,
m harris

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

#6487

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 5:21 AM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote:
> The problem is that they "look" similar.     :)

C looks like every other bracey language in the world. Is that a
problem? According to Wikipedia, there's quite a lot of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_by_category#Curly-bracket_languages

I would say that the difference between the difference between Python
2 and Python 3 and the difference between C and Javascript (there,
parse THAT one without parentheses!) is that the latter have a
fundamentally different data philosophy. Both versions of Python are
the same language, because they "think" the same way; high level
objects that can be multiply-referenced, and are disposed of when no
longer needed. (That sounds like an implementation detail -
refcounting - but I don't really care how it does it under the hood,
as long as I can have multiple variables pointing to the same object,
and have objects not need explicit deallocation.) Little syntactic
differences like whether 'print' is a function or a statement, and
whether the simple slash operator between two ints returns a float,
and the fact that Unicode is the default string type, are
comparatively minor; on 'most every philosophical point, the two
dialects agree.

Chris Angelico

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

#6509

Chris Angelico wrote:
> Both versions of Python are
> the same language, because they "think" the same way;

      I appreciate your thought. And there is an obvious continuity in 
philosophy between 2.x and 3.x; in fact even a cursory study of the 
history of python demonstrates a concerted effort to build on the best 
points of 2.x while eliminating the worst.   3.x builds upon and adds to 
2.x,  as (loosely)  C++ builds on and adds to C.  Perhaps python3 should 
have been named Python+  !   ( I think I've already told yous guys that 
I invoke python3 on my desk machine with---  Anaconda

      I see your point. But, knowing that 3.x "thinks" like 2.x is not 
helpful when we all know that languages don't think, people do. People 
need to be able to understand the 'details' of the language in order to 
be able to think with it...

> Little syntactic
> differences like whether 'print' is a function or a statement, and
> whether the simple slash operator between two ints returns a float,
> and the fact that Unicode is the default string type, are
> comparatively minor; on 'most every philosophical point, the two
> dialects agree.

    Minor, yes, .... until you need to make something work--- only to be 
frustrated to find that a detail that was not expected has risen to bite 
a sensitive place...   :)

    I am amazed at how many folks are not using 3.x/  Why?  (beats me), 
but how do I know they're not using it...?   Because, if they were 
trying to use it with 2.x knowledge they would be complaining bloody 
murder..   for instance, how do we reload a module in 2.x...  with, um, 
reload.   This has always been the way... every book says so, and every 
one of us has re-invoked a .py file by using relaod.  Reload doesn't 
even work on 3.x without an import. If you don't know that, well, you're 
sol until you figure it out, read it, or somebody tells you. This ought 
not to be.  Even the environments of these two languages are 
incompatible (partially)   :)


PS   Something nobody has pointed out yet is that "completely 
incompatible" is redundant.   ... its like saying totally destroyed.
I was trying to be funny, but nobody unpinned it... I'm disappointed.

Some of the posts here are referring to the two languages as partially 
incompatible....   reminds me of that line from Princess Bride... "... 
he's not dead, hes only mostly dead!... and mostly dead is partly 
alive!"  To say that 3.x is partly compatible with 2.x is silly, but to 
say that 3.x 'thinks' the same way as 2.x is almost pythonesque...  I 
almost like that...   :)








kind regards,
m harris

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

#6511

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:02 PM, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> Both versions of Python are
>> the same language, because they "think" the same way;
>     I see your point. But, knowing that 3.x "thinks" like 2.x is not helpful
> when we all know that languages don't think, people do.

I was being (deliberately) sloppy with the English language there, but
I was referring to the fundamental philosophies of Python, which are
common across both versions (and, presumably, most/all of them can be
seen in Python 1 too; I've never used Python 1).

>> Little syntactic
>> differences like whether 'print' is a function or a statement, and
>> whether the simple slash operator between two ints returns a float,
>> and the fact that Unicode is the default string type, are
>> comparatively minor; on 'most every philosophical point, the two
>> dialects agree.
>
>   Minor, yes, .... until you need to make something work--- only to be
> frustrated to find that a detail that was not expected has risen to bite a
> sensitive place...   :)

I get far worse than those when I switch between languages and forget
operator precedence, or forget that function X has its parameters the
other way around, or whatever. They are minor, and if you're not 100%
familiar with the language you're writing in, you should probably have
its docs handy anyway.

The print function will bite you instantly, you'll know what's wrong
as soon as you try to run it. Unicode strings, too, will usually throw
a nice tidy exception. The only one that's going to really sting you
is division, and it's so easy to deal with that one as you code
(always use // for flooring).

> instance, how do we reload a module in 2.x...  with, um, reload.   This has
> always been the way... every book says so, and every one of us has
> re-invoked a .py file by using relaod.  Reload doesn't even work on 3.x
> without an import.

>From what I gather, Python simply isn't designed with that sort of
"live reload" in mind. Just terminate it and start over, it's easier.
If you want a system where you reload parts of it without bringing
things down, either build it manually (loading another piece of code,
and maybe reassigning some state variables that have your functions),
or pick a different language - Pike does this excellently. That's not
an indictment of Python; it's simply that Python is not everything.

> Some of the posts here are referring to the two languages as partially
> incompatible....   reminds me of that line from Princess Bride... "... he's
> not dead, hes only mostly dead!... and mostly dead is partly alive!"  To say
> that 3.x is partly compatible with 2.x is silly, but to say that 3.x
> 'thinks' the same way as 2.x is almost pythonesque...  I almost like that...

Mostly compatible is still partly incompatible? Sure. But "mostly
compatible" is Python 2.6.6 and Python 2.7.1, too. It's easy to write
one codebase that runs under multiple Python versions; certainly it's
a lot easier than writing one source file that's both Python and C,
for instance. And the same lines of code will be doing the same work
(unlike most polyglottisms, where one language's code is another
language's comments). There is a subset of Python 2 that is also a
subset of Python 3, and this intersection is quite large.

Chris Angelico

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

#6539

On Sat, 28 May 2011 21:02:47 -0500, harrismh777 wrote:

>     Minor, yes, .... until you need to make something work--- only to be
> frustrated to find that a detail that was not expected has risen to bite
> a sensitive place...   :)

Just like when migrating from Python 2.3 to 2.6. And 1.5 and 2.0, and 2.0 
and 2.2, and 2.2 and 2.3.


>     I am amazed at how many folks are not using 3.x/  Why?  (beats me),

Because:

(1) the major operating systems either don't provide Python at all
    (Windows), or are conservatively still using Python 2.6 or even 
    2.5 (Mac OS, most Linux distros); 

(2) the Python website still recommends that "Python 2.x is the 
    status quo, Python 3.x is the shiny new thing" 

    <http://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3> ; 

and

(3) the most of the big frameworks and libraries have either just
    recently been upgraded to support 3.x, or haven't yet been 
    upgraded.


There's very little mystery about it. Migration to 3.x is going according 
to plan. The majority aren't expected to migrate until probably 3.4 or 
even 3.5.


> but how do I know they're not using it...?   Because, if they were
> trying to use it with 2.x knowledge they would be complaining bloody
> murder..   for instance, how do we reload a module in 2.x...  with, um,
> reload.   This has always been the way... every book says so,

*Every* book? Even these?

http://diveintopython3.org/
http://www.qtrac.eu/py3book.html
http://www.mindviewinc.com/Books/Python3Patterns/Index.php


Please quote chapter and verse.



[...]
> PS   Something nobody has pointed out yet is that "completely
> incompatible" is redundant.

That's because it is not redundant. There is a difference between 1% 
compatible and 99% compatible and 100% incompatible.


>  ... its like saying totally destroyed. I
> was trying to be funny, but nobody unpinned it... I'm disappointed.
> 
> Some of the posts here are referring to the two languages as partially
> incompatible....   reminds me of that line from Princess Bride... "...
> he's not dead, hes only mostly dead!... and mostly dead is partly
> alive!"  To say that 3.x is partly compatible with 2.x is silly, 

What a ridiculous statement, and one which flies in the face of major 
projects like numpy which support 2.x and 3.x out of a single code base.


I invite you to consider the difference between a legally dead person 
moments before being resuscitated by a paramedic, versus a chicken that 
has just been beheaded and is still running around the yard, versus a 
million-year-old fossilized bone that has turned to stone. Who could 
possibly justify saying that all three are equally dead?

Beware the tyranny of the discontinuous mind.

http://www.sciencemusings.com/2007/07/tyranny-of-discontinuous-mind.html

Both life and compatibility are matters of degree, not binary states. For 
proper operation, an electrical device might require a 6V 250mA 
transformer, but it might work well enough with one that provides just 5V 
and 240mA, provided you don't stress the device too much.

We often design our physical devices to force compatibility to be all-or-
nothing, e.g. you can't fit a USB plug into an audio jack, no matter how 
you try. But that's enforced by the design, not because compatibility is 
inherently true/false. Compatibility is inherently continuous, a matter 
of degree.

This is especially true when it comes to languages, both natural and 
programming. British English and American English are perhaps 99.5% 
compatible, but "table a motion" means completely opposite things in 
British and American English. (In Britain, it means to deal with it 
immediately; in the USA, it means to postpone it.) Should we conclude 
from this that British and American English are "different languages" and 
"completely incompatible"?

The differences between Python 2 and 3 are less than those between 
American and British English. To describe them as "different languages", 
as if going from Python 2 to 3 was like translating English to Italian, 
is absurd.



-- 
Steven

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

#6680

Steven D'Aprano wrote:


      LOL

> I invite you to consider the difference between a legally dead person
> moments before being resuscitated by a paramedic,

    ( ... alive )

> versus a chicken that
> has just been beheaded and is still running around the yard,

    ( ... alive )

> versus a
> million-year-old fossilized bone that has turned to stone.

    ( ... mostly 'dead' )

> Who could
> possibly justify saying that all three are equally dead?

    LOL    ( the first two [ roflol ] are 'partly' alive... )

       (  the third is just mostly dead...  )


>
> Beware the tyranny of the discontinuous mind.
>

     Sic Semper Tyrannus !



> Compatibility is inherently continuous, a matter
> of degree.

    Compatible by degrees is incompatible. Just 'how' incompatible 
determines whether the factor(s) are utterly useless, or just difficult 
to negotiate.

(uh, oh,... me suspects another analogy fallacy coming up... )

> This is especially true when it comes to languages, both natural and
> programming.

     ( Yup...  analogy fallacy for Ænglisc speakers... )

> British English and American English are perhaps 99.5%
> compatible, but "table a motion" means completely opposite things in
> British and American English. (In Britain, it means to deal with it
> immediately; in the USA, it means to postpone it.) Should we conclude
> from this that British and American English are "different languages" and
> "completely incompatible"?

    We Americans have not spoken 'English' in well over two hundred 
years...   :)          roflol

    However, I guarantee that if I'm dumped unaided in Piccadilly I'll 
be able to hail a cab, pay my £12.00 and get myself to Liverpool Street 
Station, find the bathroom, and be on the correct train just in time for 
dinner, all without looking into the English dictionary.
    On the other hand (playing along with this analogy fallacy) if I 
dump a python newbie unaided in the middle of 2.5 and ask them to format 
a simple polytonic Greek unicode string and output it with print to 
stdout (redirected to a file) they will fail... maybe even if they have 
a dictionary !

>
> The differences between Python 2 and 3 are less than those between
> American and British English.

    absurd and unsubstantiated claim... quickly now call the bobbies, 
call the bobbies !!!

To describe them as "different languages",
> as if going from Python 2 to 3 was like translating English to Italian,
> is absurd.

    ... no, um, its more like migrating ye old Ænglisc...  (the Ænglisc 
of say, "Beowulf" ) to modern English....  still assuming the English 
analogy fallacy holds... which,... it doesn't...


Ever tried to read Beowulf in the original?  Ever tried to write Ænglisc ?






kind regards,
m harris

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

#6686

On Tue, 31 May 2011 01:32:01 +0100, harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net>  
wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Compatibility is inherently continuous, a matter
>> of degree.
>
>     Compatible by degrees is incompatible. Just 'how' incompatible  
> determines whether the factor(s) are utterly useless, or just difficult  
> to negotiate.
>
> (uh, oh,... me suspects another analogy fallacy coming up... )
>
>> This is especially true when it comes to languages, both natural and
>> programming.
>
>      ( Yup...  analogy fallacy for Ænglisc speakers... )

I don't know about you, but I speak English not "Anglish".  This is how an  
aesc is pronounced, after all.

>> British English and American English are perhaps 99.5%
>> compatible, but "table a motion" means completely opposite things in
>> British and American English. (In Britain, it means to deal with it
>> immediately; in the USA, it means to postpone it.) Should we conclude
>> from this that British and American English are "different languages"  
>> and
>> "completely incompatible"?
>
>     We Americans have not spoken 'English' in well over two hundred  
> years...   :)          roflol

Quite the contrary, in fact.  Much American usage of English actually  
better preserves the styles of eighteenth century English usage, having  
managed to avoid some of the "corrections" of Victorian grammarians.

>     However, I guarantee that if I'm dumped unaided in Piccadilly I'll  
> be able to hail a cab, pay my £12.00 and get myself to Liverpool Street  
> Station, find the bathroom, and be on the correct train just in time for  
> dinner, all without looking into the English dictionary.

And I guarantee that you'd get odd looks for at least one of those.  You  
may not notice; we Brits are used to translating the large amount of US TV  
we get back into British English.

>     On the other hand (playing along with this analogy fallacy) if I  
> dump a python newbie unaided in the middle of 2.5 and ask them to format  
> a simple polytonic Greek unicode string and output it with print to  
> stdout (redirected to a file) they will fail... maybe even if they have  
> a dictionary !

Now this is an analogy fallacy, and an obvious one at that.

-- 
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses

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

#6705

On Tue, 31 May 2011 01:58:17 +0100, "Rhodri James"
<rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:

> And I guarantee that you'd get odd looks for at least one of those.  You  

	Well... He did say "find the bathroom", not ask for directions to
whatever euphemism is in current usage (water closet, W/C, loo ?)
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

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

#6709

Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> writes:

> 	Well... He did say "find the bathroom", not ask for directions to
> whatever euphemism is in current usage (water closet, W/C, loo ?)

The room which contains the bath is the bathroom.

Assuming that the toilet is in the same room as the bath is parochial.

If he wants the toilet, “bathroom” is a euphemism, and he should instead
ask for directions to the toilet.

-- 
 \          “When we talk to God, we're praying. When God talks to us, |
  `\         we're schizophrenic.” —Jane Wagner, via Lily Tomlin, 1985 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

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

#6742

On 31/05/2011 06:48, Ben Finney wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber<wlfraed@ix.netcom.com>  writes:
>
>> 	Well... He did say "find the bathroom", not ask for directions to
>> whatever euphemism is in current usage (water closet, W/C, loo ?)
>
> The room which contains the bath is the bathroom.
>
> Assuming that the toilet is in the same room as the bath is parochial.
>
> If he wants the toilet, “bathroom” is a euphemism, and he should instead
> ask for directions to the toilet.
>
"Toilet" is also a euphemism, as are "water closet", "WC", "loo", etc.

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

#6747

On Tue, 31 May 2011 15:48:34 +1000, Ben Finney
<ben+python@benfinney.id.au> declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:

> 
> If he wants the toilet, “bathroom” is a euphemism, and he should instead
> ask for directions to the toilet.
>
	I was attempting to emphasize that the poster did not say he was
asking for directions to that facility, only "find"ing it... Which may
involve nothing more than recognizing one of various common icons on the
doorway...

-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
        wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

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

#6691

On 5/30/2011 8:32 PM, harrismh777 wrote:

> Ever tried to read Beowulf in the original? Ever tried to write Ænglisc ?

I have, and it is a lot further from modern American than Python 2 and 3 
are from each other.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

#6692

On 5/30/2011 8:32 PM, harrismh777 wrote:

>
> However, I guarantee that if I'm dumped unaided in Piccadilly I'll be
> able to hail a cab, pay my £12.00 and get myself to Liverpool Street
> Station, find the bathroom, and be on the correct train just in time for
> dinner, all without looking into the English dictionary.

Because natural language is redundant and most speakers are forgiving, 
while computer language are stripped on much redundancy and their 
interpreters tend to be unforgiving, so a single missing comma or space 
can raise a SyntaxError. Python is designed to do so, and allow/require 
correction, rather than guess and go on.

This is not so bad; what if the cabbie does not understand you but say 
OK, guesses the destination, ignores any protestations, and asks for £30 
at the wrong destination. Following people who deafly say OK and take 
you whereever is a real hazard in some countries. Some tourist guides 
even warn about the practice.

Anyway, 'L i v e r p o o l   S t r e e t   S t a t i o n' is such a 
trivial utterance as to not be comparable to anything as complicated as 
a typical 5-line function.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web