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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #17548 > unrolled thread

Python education survey

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

Contents

  Python education survey Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> - 2011-12-19 19:51 -0800
    Re: Python education survey Alec Taylor <alec.taylor6@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 17:27 +1100
    Re: Python education survey Luka Dornhecker <luka.dornhecker@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-19 23:20 -0800
    Re: Python education survey Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 02:32 -0500
    Re: Python education survey Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> - 2011-12-20 09:14 +0100
      Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 03:02 -0800
      Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 06:45 -0800
        Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-21 02:51 +1100
    Re: Python education survey Andrea Crotti <andrea.crotti.0@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 10:58 +0000
      Re: Python education survey Carl Smith <carl.input@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 21:59 -0800
        Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 03:41 -0800
          Re: Python education survey Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 04:53 +1100
            Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:45 -0800
              Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 12:04 -0800
                Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 13:44 -0800
                  Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 17:56 -0800
                    Re: Python education survey Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-12-27 20:21 -0600
                      Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 18:42 -0800
                        Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 14:54 +1100
                        Re: Python education survey Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-12-28 06:59 +0000
                          Re: Python education survey rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 23:49 -0800
                          Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-31 16:27 +0000
                            Re: Python education survey Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-12-31 13:23 -0500
                              Re: Python education survey Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> - 2011-12-31 20:06 +0100
                                Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-01 02:36 +0000
                                  Re: Python education survey Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> - 2012-01-01 05:53 +0100
                                    Re: Python education survey Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-01-02 17:02 +0000
                              Re: Python education survey Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 23:44 -0600
                        Re: Python education survey Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> - 2011-12-31 21:12 -0800
                          Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 21:27 -0800
                            Re: Python education survey Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> - 2012-01-02 22:03 -0800
                            Re: Python education survey Evan Driscoll <edriscoll@wisc.edu> - 2012-01-03 01:31 -0500
                            Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2012-01-03 04:33 -0800
                              Re: Python education survey Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-04 01:30 +0000
                        Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 16:50 +1100
                    Re: Python education survey Eelco <hoogendoorn.eelco@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 04:25 -0800
    Re: Python education survey Miki Tebeka <miki.tebeka@gmail.com> - 2011-12-20 10:07 -0800
    Re: Python education survey Fernando Perez <fperez.net@gmail.com> - 2011-12-21 01:40 +0000
    Re: Python education survey Ashton Fagg <ashton@fagg.id.au> - 2011-12-21 12:06 +1000
      Re: Python education survey Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-12-20 21:34 -0500
        Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-21 13:44 +1100
        Re: Python education survey Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2011-12-21 11:57 -0500
          Re: Python education survey Raymond Hettinger <raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> - 2011-12-22 12:01 -0800
          Re: Python education survey rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-12-22 19:05 -0800
    Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 09:44 -0800
      Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 14:27 +1100
        Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 06:52 -0800
          Re: Python education survey Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.rice@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 11:11 -0500
            Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 09:27 -0800
          Re: Python education survey Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-12-26 18:04 +0000
            Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 10:32 -0800
              Re: Python education survey Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 06:56 +1100
      Re: Python education survey Carl Smith <carl.input@gmail.com> - 2011-12-26 22:14 -0800
        Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 08:37 -0800
          Re: Python education survey Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 04:50 +1100
            Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 10:11 -0800
              Re: Python education survey Lie Ryan <lie.1296@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 08:13 +1100
              Re: Python education survey Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 14:31 -0700
    Re: Python education survey Monte Milanuk <memilanuk@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 22:02 -0800
    Re: Python education survey K Richard Pixley <rich@noir.com> - 2011-12-27 09:59 -0800
      Re: Python education survey Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 12:26 -0600
        Re: Python education survey K Richard Pixley <rich@noir.com> - 2011-12-27 14:04 -0800
          Re: Python education survey Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 16:57 -0600
            Re: Python education survey 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-27 17:21 -0800
              Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 18:01 -0800
            Re: Python education survey 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-27 17:21 -0800
        Re: Python education survey rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 21:50 -0800
      Re: Python education survey Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 10:21 -0800
        Re: Python education survey K Richard Pixley <rich@noir.com> - 2011-12-27 12:39 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#18109

On Dec 28, 11:59 am, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>
> > This is group has the most dumbest smart people i have ever met!
>
> Considering I keep expecting you to stop trolling, I admit this applies
> to me.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/55234

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

#18255

On 2011-12-28, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:42:05 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
>> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world"
>> dictionary. I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony
>> baloney group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that
>> writing a dictionary "might be cool". I am against these words and
>> phrases because we already have words that work just fine. Why rock
>> the boat?
>
> Why do you say "rock" when the word "shake" is just as good?
>
> Why do you say "boat" when we already have "ship"?
>
> Why do you say "pseudo intellectuals" when you could say "fake 
> intellectuals"?
>
> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?

http://xkcd.com/386/

;)

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Not SENSUOUS ... only
                                  at               "FROLICSOME" ... and in
                              gmail.com            need of DENTAL WORK ... in
                                                   PAIN!!!

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

#18259

In article <jdnd4v$6mg$1@reader1.panix.com>,
 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 2011-12-28, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 18:42:05 -0800, Rick Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world"
> >> dictionary. I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony
> >> baloney group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that
> >> writing a dictionary "might be cool". I am against these words and
> >> phrases because we already have words that work just fine. Why rock
> >> the boat?
> >
> > Why do you say "rock" when the word "shake" is just as good?
> >
> > Why do you say "boat" when we already have "ship"?
> >
> > Why do you say "pseudo intellectuals" when you could say "fake 
> > intellectuals"?
> >
> > Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
> 
> http://xkcd.com/386/
> 
> ;)

Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?

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

#18266

On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:

>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>
>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>
>> ;)
>
> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?

xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still 
don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy 
for the lone and broken?

FWIW, it undermines all my attempts to block him. Sigh.

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

#18286

On 2011-12-31, Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> wrote:
> On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:
>
>>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>>
>>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>>
>>> ;)
>>
>> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?
>
> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still 
> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy 
> for the lone and broken?

Sadly, RR's post are often (in the supposed words of Wolfgang Pauli)
"not even wrong".

-- 
Grant

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

#18287

On 01.01.2012 03:36, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2011-12-31, Alexander Kapps<alex.kapps@web.de>  wrote:
>> On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>>>
>>>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>>>
>>>> ;)
>>>
>>> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?
>>
>> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still
>> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy
>> for the lone and broken?
>
> Sadly, RR's post are often (in the supposed words of Wolfgang Pauli)
> "not even wrong".
>

I'm sure, RR is now jumping up high in rapture for being compared to 
high-profile scientist geniuses. Move fuel for his 	 self-affirmation.

I'll give my entire kingdom (or important body-parts, in case my 
kingdom isn't enough) if people would just understand that 
perfection(ists) is/are *the most* dangerous thing possible.

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

#18332

On 2012-01-01, Alexander Kapps <alex.kapps@web.de> wrote:
> On 01.01.2012 03:36, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2011-12-31, Alexander Kapps<alex.kapps@web.de>  wrote:
>>> On 31.12.2011 19:23, Roy Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Why do I waste my time reading your pretentious self-important nonsense?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>>>>>
>>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>> Why ROFLMAO when double-plus funny works just as well?
>>>
>>> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still
>>> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy
>>> for the lone and broken?
>>
>> Sadly, RR's post are often (in the supposed words of Wolfgang Pauli)
>> "not even wrong".
>
> I'm sure, RR is now jumping up high in rapture for being compared to 
> high-profile scientist geniuses.

I'm not comparing RR to Pauli.  I'm quoting somethin Pauli said when
criticising something that was so confusing and ill conceived that "it
wasn't even wrong".

-- 
Grant

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

#18289

On 12/31/2011 1:06 PM, Alexander Kapps wrote:
> xkcd/386 has been the excuse for replying to RR for ages and I still 
> don't understand why he gets that much advertence. Charity? Sympathy 
> for the lone and broken?
> 
> FWIW, it undermines all my attempts to block him. Sigh.
Do what I do: laugh at the joke. He's a troll and the posts are jokes.
Personally, I enjoy his posts; the silliness is good for a laugh. Once
you stop taking it seriously, it goes from irritation to entertainment.

-- 
CPython 3.2.2 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17640

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

#18288

On 12/27/2011 6:42 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Dec 27, 8:21 pm, Tim Chase<python.l...@tim.thechases.com>  wrote:
>
>> I'm glad you're open to learning more about English as "used to"
>> is perfectly acceptable according to the World English Dictionary[1]
>> [...]
>> May you be found better for learning and come to give others the
>> benefit of the doubt.
>
> I don't care what ANY dictionary says. Much less a "world" dictionary.
(Shouldn't this be |||world|||?)
> I don't validate or invalidate a word based on some phony baloney
I doubt you could validate or invalidate a word.  A word is, there is no 
validation necessary.  You could potentially try to validate it's use 
but again that's not in your power.
> group of pseudo intellectuals who decided one to day that writing a
> dictionary "might be cool".
I think you need to go back to school to understand what a dictionary 
is.  (FYI, a dictionary codifies usage, not the other way around.)

  I am against these words and phrases
I think you mean these words and phrases being used in this way - the 
words and phrases themselves are just that.  They imply no meaning 
unless used in some kind of context.
> because we already have words that work just fine. Why rock the boat?
Perhaps you mean, because more precise words or phrases for these uses 
exist?  By your token 'work' should refer to physical activity which is 
not appropriate in this context and probably 'fine' should refer to a 
payment that is made having broken some rule or regulation thus leading 
to monetary reparation.

I think, herein lies the problem - abject denial of all evidence to the 
contrary simply because it disagrees with your limited point of view.

>
> Why would you use a word like "hard" (which describes the physical
> properties of a tangible object),

Because many words have more than one meaning and their context 
describes the meaning.  For example 'Time flies like an arrow, fruit 
flies like a banana'.  I know you can parse and understand that but the 
sentences are precisely alike, yet completely different.

   to describe how "difficult" a task
> may be?

Because it's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.  Many problems are 
described as 'HARD' in technical documentation when examining their 
complexity.  I don't always like the terms used for things, but at least 
let's be consistent in our usage.

  If you insist on this lunacy, then why not use "soft" to
> describe how easy a task may be? Seems ridiculous now, huh?

Soft is used in this context - as in choosing the soft option - i.e. the 
easy way out.  And your problem is, precisely?
>
> Garbage Verbiage Translator:
For Garbage Verbiage, read 'common English'
>   Used to ->  previously|before
Though used to is perfect acceptable in any English speaking country.
>   Supposed to ->  required|expected
probably 'intended' would be better here since 'supposed to' indicates 
that you should do this, but it is not required (pretty much the 
opposite for your given translation).
>   Use to ->  accustomed|acquainted
Sorry to be picky, but "use to" refers to application as in "When I say 
'idiot', in this context 'idiot' I use to mean 'person who cannot speak 
English as it is commonly used'.", not accustomed|acquainted.  In the 
example you give, it's probably mistyped, maybe by a non-native English 
speaker.  (oh bother, I just used " and ' to denote separate spoken 
phrases, maybe I should use ||| instead.)

For what it's worth in English (i.e. British, the language I was brought 
up to speak) we say, for example:

* get on/off a bus
* get up in the morning
* get down to some music
* get around an obstacle
* get over a broken relationship
* get back to our previous place in a story
* get through a difficult time/bush
* get into a really good book
* get about town
* put up our Christmas lights
and put down an idiot that doesn't understand that English has lots of 
compound verbs that are not poorly written, just commonly used and 
understood.

>   Right (OOC) ->  Correct
While I agree 'right' can be annoying it's usage as in 'you are correct' 
can be traced back to 1588, I think we're going to have to allow for 
it's usage in 2011 (very nearly 2012 for me and definitely 2012 for 
anyone east of New York City).

>   Hard (OOC) ->  Difficult
Phrases to mean 'difficult' or 'tough' come from at least 1886 so again, 
it's use in this context is hardly new.  (And remember Charles Dickens' 
book Hard Times uses 'hard' to mean difficult not physically solid.)  In 
fact looking into this a little more carefully, "hard of hearing" 
maintains the now largely obsolete meaning of hard from Middle English 
to mean have difficult doing something.  I don't really think we can 
claim it's usage is wrong.

>   Pretty (OOC) ->  very
Pretty on it's own doesn't mean very at all.  (God knows where you got 
that idea from.)  When combined with another adjective, such as hard, 
pretty does enhance the adjective.  However, pretty difficult is not the 
same as very difficult.  Pretty, in this context would probably be 
better defined as 'somewhat' or 'quite'.  (Oh and it's use in this 
context can be traced back to 1565.)

While you're here you might want to investigate what nice and liaise 
mean cause they probably don't mean what you think they do.

>
> This is group has the most dumbest smart people i have ever met!

I don't know what planet you come from, but I would refrain from picking 
arguments over tedious detail of words when it is perfectly clear what 
people mean.

-- 
Dominic Binks: dbinks@codeaurora.org
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum

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

#18372

On Dec 31 2011, 11:12 pm, Dominic Binks <dbi...@codeaurora.org> wrote:

> I doubt you could validate or invalidate a word.  A word is, there is no
> validation necessary.  You could potentially try to validate it's use
> but again that's not in your power.

Usage begets validation. By using words in a manner that is improper
we validate the continued existence of stupidity.

> I think you need to go back to school to understand what a dictionary
> is. (FYI, a dictionary codifies usage, not the other way around.)

So there are no standards by which a dictionary must meet? The sheeple
should just read and accept any garage that the dictionary writers
dictate? Sadly, a dictionary has the power to give legitimacy to a
word. When we expand the definitions of words like "pretty" and reduce
those definitions to the absurd AND then include those absurd
definitions in a "dictionary" NOW we have just given lunacy the
justification it so desires.

> Perhaps you mean, because more precise words or phrases for these uses
> exist?  By your token 'work' should refer to physical activity which is
> not appropriate in this context and probably 'fine' should refer to a
> payment that is made having broken some rule or regulation thus leading
> to monetary reparation.

Yes, i used the word "work" improperly here. Just another example of
the corrupting influence of garage verbiage. Thanks for bring this to
my attention!


> > Why would you use a word like "hard" (which describes the physical
> > properties of a tangible object),
>
> Because many words have more than one meaning and their context
> describes the meaning.  For example 'Time flies like an arrow, fruit
> flies like a banana'.  I know you can parse and understand that but the
> sentences are precisely alike, yet completely different.

And that is just my point: by adopting so many meanings of a word that
are dependent on context, we obfuscate our communication.

> rr said: """Supposed to ->  required|expected"""
>
> probably 'intended' would be better here since 'supposed to' indicates
> that you should do this, but it is not required (pretty much the
> opposite for your given translation).

Actually, no. Consider this sentence: "We are supposed to-->[required
to|expected] follow the law, but sometimes i just cannot get used to
it!"

> rr said: """ Use to ->  accustomed|acquainted"""
>
> Sorry to be picky, but "use to" refers to application as in "When I say
> 'idiot', in this context 'idiot' I use to mean 'person who cannot speak
> English as it is commonly used'."

Completely wrong! Consider this: "I USED TO wear a tutu however i just
never could get USE TO the ridicule from others"

> rr said:  """Right (OOC) ->  Correct"""
>
> While I agree 'right' can be annoying it's usage as in 'you are correct'
> can be traced back to 1588, I think we're going to have to allow for
> it's usage in 2011

So just because people have been using a word out of context we should
just continue? Why?

> rr said: """Hard (OOC) ->  Difficult"""
>
> Phrases to mean 'difficult' or 'tough' come from at least 1886 so again,
> it's use in this context is hardly new.

New or not, it's wrong!

> rr said: """Pretty (OOC) ->  very"""
>
> Pretty on it's own doesn't mean very at all.  (God knows where you got
> that idea from.) When combined with another adjective, such as hard,
> pretty does enhance the adjective.  However, pretty difficult is not the
> same as very difficult.  Pretty, in this context would probably be
> better defined as 'somewhat' or 'quite'.  (Oh and it's use in this
> context can be traced back to 1565.)

Pretty is by far the most ubiquitous use of a word in a manner that is
"out of context". If you don't believe me, grep this group for all the
occurrences of the word "pretty", and see if ANY instances of this
word are used to describe "the pleasurable physical attributes of a
tangible object". I would safely say that 99% are used out of
context. :-(

Why do people use pretty when we already have words that carry more
specific meaning? Because they are lazy! And laziness begets
stupidity.

Do any of you remember the Unicode thread from way back? If so, you
will remember all the well known trolls who ranted about "how the
words you use shape the way your brain processes information".
Choosing the easy way out is detrimental to your future evolution.
Stop propagating your stupidity memes and use your F'in brain for
once!

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

#18378

On 1/2/2012 9:27 PM, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Dec 31 2011, 11:12 pm, Dominic Binks<dbi...@codeaurora.org>  wrote:
>
>> I doubt you could validate or invalidate a word.  A word is, there is no

... taken off list


-- 
Dominic Binks: dbinks@codeaurora.org
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum

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

#18380

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

On 1/3/2012 0:27, Rick Johnson wrote:
> Yes, i used the word "work" improperly here. Just another example of
> the corrupting influence of garage verbiage. Thanks for bring this to
> my attention! 

"Diction" would be a far better word than "verbiage" there.

Evan

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

#18399

> Why do people use pretty when we already have words that carry more
> specific meaning? Because they are lazy! And laziness begets
> stupidity.

No, that would be because they are not autistic. Most people like
having a repertoire of words with subtly different meanings in their
natural language, because there is a demand for this semantic richness.

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

#18475

On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:33:45 -0800, Eelco wrote:

>> Why do people use pretty when we already have words that carry more
>> specific meaning? Because they are lazy! And laziness begets stupidity.
> 
> No, that would be because they are not autistic. Most people like having
> a repertoire of words with subtly different meanings in their natural
> language, because there is a demand for this semantic richness.

+1 QOTW


-- 
Steven

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

#18290

On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Dominic Binks <dbinks@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> While I agree 'right' can be annoying it's usage as in 'you are correct' can
> be traced back to 1588, I think we're going to have to allow for it's usage
> in 2011 (very nearly 2012 for me and definitely 2012 for anyone east of New
> York City).

And I am right, And you are right,
And everything is quite correct!
-- http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/mikado/webopera/mk103.html

Context matters, words have multiple meanings. Can we agree on this
point and move on? Otherwise, we're still going to be arguing this
come 2013...

ChrisA

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

#18118

On Dec 28, 2:56 am, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 3:44 pm, Eelco <hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Despite the fact that you mis-attributed that quote to me, im going to
> > be a little bit offended in the name of its actual author anyway.
> > Thats a lot of words to waste on your linguistic preferences.
> > Personally, I reserve the right to botch my non-native languages as
> > much as I please.
>
> I hope you're just joking a bit because i have little respect for
> those who refuse to better themselves. If you are learning English as
> a second language then you have a legitimacy excuse, but at some point
> that excuse just becomes a lie. In any case, i apologize for mis-
> quoting you.

Yes, I was joking a bit; I learned my english primarily on programming
boards, and im proud to say it rivals that of a majority of native
speakers (low bar to beat, true). Furthermore, you are free to direct
criticism at my writing or that of anyone else, but I must say I dont
much care to hear it. A language is learned by using it, in reading,
writing or speech; not by grammar nazis, or style nazis for that
matter. Im here to discuss issues related to python, and anyone who
manages to make himself understood is welcome to do so, as far as I am
concerned. Im much more worried whether they have something
interesting to contribute to the actual discussion. Not getting stuck
picking nits, fighting personal feuds or getting dragged into the
swamp by trolls; those are the real challenges, in my opinion.

If you are insistent on bettering yourself; there is half a dozen
other languages we could continue the conversation in. Your marginal
gain per sentence read and written might be much larger there than in
english.

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

#17594

I've tried several things. So far vim (with line numbers) to show the code and then ipython to run it works great.

Another option I tried once was Aptana, since most people in my company know eclipse this was good for them. It has most (all?) of the features you mentioned above.

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

#17636

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:51:00 -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:

> Do you use IDLE when teaching Python? If not, what is the tool of
> choice?

I'm obviously biased (I started IPython years ago), but I've done a lot 
of teaching and I still do like the combination of IPython plus an 
editor.  Sometimes I use IDLE configured to only open the editor and not 
the shell, but I recommend that users learn a 'real' editor for the long 
run (aka emacs/vim), as it's an investment that will pay off many times 
over.  

But if nothing else, there's at least an OK free editor for each OS that 
does work, and I keep a 'starter kit' page with those resources for my 
students:

http://fperez.org/py4science/starter_kit.html

Cheers,

f

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

#17638

On 20 December 2011 13:51, Raymond Hettinger
<raymond.hettinger@gmail.com> wrote:
> Students may not be experienced with the command-line and may be
> running Windows, Linux, or Macs.  Ideally, the tool or IDE will be
> easy to install and configure (startup directory, path, associated
> with a particular version of Python etc).

I tutor people (usually fellow students) in programming occasionally,
and I've always recommended a simple text editor and a command line
(this correlates with most languages, not just Python). My personal
set up (using Linux) is vim (with line numbers and syntax
highlighting) + shell, no matter which language I'm working with.
However for people I'm tutoring, particularly if they're new to
programming in general and would find vim intimidating, I recommend
gedit (for Linux) or Notepad++ (for Windows), executing/compiling from
the command line.

As long as the text editor has line numbers and syntax highlighting
it's sufficient in my book. I don't like obfuscating what's going on
in the background (i.e. interacting with the Python/C/<insert language
here> interpreter/compiler/whatever) with a fancy IDE. However that is
my personal (strong) opinion.

Hope that helps.

-- 
Ashton Fagg
E-mail: ashton@fagg.id.au
Web: http://www.fagg.id.au/~ashton/

Keep calm and call Batman.

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

#17640

In article <mailman.3895.1324433216.27778.python-list@python.org>,
 Ashton Fagg <ashton@fagg.id.au> wrote:

> As long as the text editor has line numbers and syntax highlighting
> it's sufficient in my book. 

I agree with the syntax highlighting.  I resisted for many years, then 
somebody turned me on to it a few years ago and I've been addicted ever 
since.

As for line numbers, for working alone, I don't see much point.  But for 
any kind of interaction with other people, it's essential.  It's just SO 
much easier to say, "line 417" as opposed to "OK, scroll up a couple 
more lines, no, no, not that far, go down a little.  There!  See that 
print statement, now go down three lines below that, ..."  By the time 
the two of you are on the same page about which line of code you're 
talking about, you will have forgotten what you wanted to say.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web