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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #69491 > unrolled thread

Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie !

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

Contents

  Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2014-04-01 10:20 +0200
    Re: Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! bob gailer <bgailer@gmail.com> - 2014-04-01 10:32 -0400
    Re: Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-02 02:19 +1100
    Re: Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2014-04-02 04:15 +0000
      Re: Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-04-02 16:42 +1100
        Re: Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2014-04-02 17:17 +1000
        Re: Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-04-02 14:20 +0000
    Re: Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie ! Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2014-04-01 21:04 -0400

#69491 — Python to be replaced by the new language called Cookie !

April Fools =D

Bye,
  Skybuck =D

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#69519

On 4/1/2014 4:20 AM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> April Fools =D
If you thought spaghetti code was bad, ...

in December, 1973  R. Lawrence Clark proposed a new programming 
construct: COME FROM. See https://www.fortran.com/come_from.html

What can we do in this new age of GOTOless programming do to match this 
incredible achievement?

How about an "against" statement.

Something like against <iterable of callable objects> throw <iterable of 
arguments>?

This doesn't really capture the same weird behavior of COME FROM, but it 
is a starter.


How about a "without" statement?

without <identifier [, identifier ...]  [raise <exception>]:
   <suite>

Within the <suite>Any mention of any identifier in the list raises the 
specified or default (WithoutError) exception.

PEP writers: sharpen your quills!

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

#69521

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:32 AM, bob gailer <bgailer@gmail.com> wrote:
> How about a "without" statement?
>
> without <identifier [, identifier ...]  [raise <exception>]:
>   <suite>
>
> Within the <suite>Any mention of any identifier in the list raises the
> specified or default (WithoutError) exception.

In the interests of anti-patterns, we should adopt converses to all
the classic patterns. Instead of Object Orientation, where you
instantiate a few classes many times, we have Object Disorientation:
every object is in a class of its own, and all objects rank equally.
No more hierarchies, we have true equality!

Also, we should recommend Dysfunctional Programming. Recursion is bad,
and all instances of it should be turned into generators. Behold:

# Functional programming style
def spam(x):
    return "." + ham(x)

def ham(y):
    return spam(y-1) if y else "!"

def __main__():
    print(spam(5))

__main__()

# Dysfunctional style
def spam(x):
    yield " " + next(ham(x))

def ham(y):
    if y: yield from spam(y-1)
    else: yield "!"

def __main__():
    print(next(spam(5)))

__main__()


Generators are inherently more Pythonic than recursion; after all,
they have language-level support, while recursion doesn't even get the
meager support of a "call self" opcode.

Finally, Imperative Programming should be replaced with a much more
courteous Request Programming. Instead of stating what you expect the
program to do with a series of commands, you implement everything
using the 'requests' module and the 'http.server' module. As an added
bonus, you can very easily separate components of your program across
multiple processes or even multiple computers, without any extra
effort!

These improvements are absolutely critical to the language, and should
be made in Python 2.5.7, 2.6.9, and 3.0.2. Anyone using a newer
version of Python is paying the price for early adoption, and should
back-level immediately to a supported version.

ChrisA

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

#69536

On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 02:19:38 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> These improvements are absolutely critical to the language, and should
> be made in Python 2.5.7, 2.6.9, and 3.0.2. Anyone using a newer
> version of Python is paying the price for early adoption, and should
> back-level immediately to a supported version.

I'm using 2.8.  Should I upgrade?

*ducking*

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

#69538

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 02:19:38 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> These improvements are absolutely critical to the language, and should
>> be made in Python 2.5.7, 2.6.9, and 3.0.2. Anyone using a newer
>> version of Python is paying the price for early adoption, and should
>> back-level immediately to a supported version.
>
> I'm using 2.8.  Should I upgrade?

Definitely. Python 2.8 is supported only on Windows XP 64-bit, and you
should upgrade to 32-bit Python; this will give you a 50% saving on
all pointers, and Python uses a lot of pointers, so your code will be
more efficient.

ChrisA

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

#69541

On 2/04/2014 3:42 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Python 2.8 is supported only on Windows XP 64-bit, and you
> should upgrade to 32-bit Python

That would be Python 1.4

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

#69546

On 2014-04-02, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2014 02:19:38 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> These improvements are absolutely critical to the language, and should
>>> be made in Python 2.5.7, 2.6.9, and 3.0.2. Anyone using a newer
>>> version of Python is paying the price for early adoption, and should
>>> back-level immediately to a supported version.
>>
>> I'm using 2.8.  Should I upgrade?
>
> Definitely. Python 2.8 is supported only on Windows XP 64-bit, and you
> should upgrade to 32-bit Python; this will give you a 50% saving on
> all pointers, and Python uses a lot of pointers, so your code will be
> more efficient.

And you'll save a _ton_ of money on ink.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Is my fallout shelter
                                  at               termite proof?
                              gmail.com            

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

#69579

On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:32:41 -0400, bob gailer <bgailer@gmail.com>
declaimed the following:

>On 4/1/2014 4:20 AM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> April Fools =D
>If you thought spaghetti code was bad, ...
>
>in December, 1973  R. Lawrence Clark proposed a new programming 
>construct: COME FROM. See https://www.fortran.com/come_from.html
>
	How soon some forget... While the proposed FORTRAN was never
implemented, we did have:

http://entrian.com/goto/

as an working implementation in Python.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web