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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #82379 > unrolled thread

Re: Python

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Python "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2026-03-04 10:32 -0600
    Re: Python ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-03-04 20:01 +0000
      Re: Python "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-04 21:29 +0100
        Re: Python Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-04 20:37 +0000
        Re: Python Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-03-04 14:09 -0700
          Re: Python Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-04 22:35 +0000
            Re: Python Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-04 23:10 +0000
            Re: Python c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-04 20:30 -0500
            Re: Python Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-03-04 20:13 -0700
              Re: Python Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-05 03:49 +0000
              Re: Python Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-05 17:42 +0000
                Re: Python "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-05 20:02 +0100
                  Re: Python c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-05 14:42 -0500
                  Re: Python Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-06 00:12 +0000
                    Re: Python Bob Eager <news0009@eager.cx> - 2026-03-06 09:02 +0000
          Re: Python Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-05 02:44 +0000
            Re: Python Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-05 03:50 +0000
        Re: Python Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> - 2026-03-04 22:14 +0100
          Re: Python The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-04 22:20 +0000

#82379 — Re: Python

On 18/12/2025 12.00, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
>> I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
>> code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
>> program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
> 
> Regrettably, I’ve encountered plenty of comments that don’t actually
> reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
> 
> If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that’s great, you
> have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize there’s
> a problem at all.
> 
> However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment
> is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
> (although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).

I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was purchased
by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for NAFTA market
requirements. The good news was that every comment was written twice:
once in German and once in English.

The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two paired
comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how it was done.

-- 
Michael F. Stemper
Galatians 3:28

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#82390

In article <10o9mre$327a7$3@dont-email.me>,
Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 18/12/2025 12.00, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
>>> I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
>>> code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
>>> program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
>> 
>> Regrettably, I’ve encountered plenty of comments that don’t actually
>> reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
>> 
>> If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that’s great, you
>> have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize there’s
>> a problem at all.
>> 
>> However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment
>> is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
>> (although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).
>
>I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was purchased
>by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for NAFTA market
>requirements. The good news was that every comment was written twice:
>once in German and once in English.
>
>The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two paired
>comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how it was done.
>

A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is never
quite sure...
-- 
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

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

#82393

On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <10o9mre$327a7$3@dont-email.me>,
> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18/12/2025 12.00, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
>>>> I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
>>>> code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
>>>> program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
>>>
>>> Regrettably, I’ve encountered plenty of comments that don’t actually
>>> reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
>>>
>>> If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that’s great, you
>>> have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize there’s
>>> a problem at all.
>>>
>>> However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment
>>> is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
>>> (although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).
>>
>> I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was purchased
>> by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for NAFTA market
>> requirements. The good news was that every comment was written twice:
>> once in German and once in English.
>>
>> The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two paired
>> comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how it was done.
>>
> 
> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is never
> quite sure...

Experimental science would not agree.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#82394

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 21:29:30 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>> In article <10o9mre$327a7$3@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was
>>> purchased by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for
>>> NAFTA market requirements. The good news was that every comment
>>> was written twice: once in German and once in English.
>>>
>>> The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two
>>> paired comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how
>>> it was done.
>>
>> A man with one clock knows what time it is. A man with two is never
>> quite sure...
>
> Experimental science would not agree.

Fallacious analogy, for sure.

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

#82395

On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <10o9mre$327a7$3@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael F. Stemper <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18/12/2025 12.00, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> writes:
>>>>> I comment *A LOT*. When I had to go back and revisit some very old
>>>>> code, I wished I had commented more. I've almost never looked at a
>>>>> program and said "I wish it had fewer comments."
>>>>
>>>> Regrettably, I’ve encountered plenty of comments that don’t actually
>>>> reflect the code (for a variety of reasons).
>>>>
>>>> If the code is wrong and the comment is right then that’s great, you
>>>> have a nice hint about how to fix the code, assuming you realize 
>>>> there’s
>>>> a problem at all.
>>>>
>>>> However if the code is right but the comment is wrong then the comment
>>>> is worse than nothing. The code would be improved by removing it
>>>> (although almost certainly improved even more by correcting it).
>>>
>>> I encountered a perverse version of that. My (US) employer was purchased
>>> by a German firm. We began adapting their code base for NAFTA market
>>> requirements. The good news was that every comment was written twice:
>>> once in German and once in English.
>>>
>>> The bad news? I knew enough German to be able to tell that the two 
>>> paired
>>> comments sometimes disagreed on what was being done or how it was done.
>>>
>>
>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is never
>> quite sure...
> 
> Experimental science would not agree.
>

You would need at least three.

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

#82401

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>.
>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>> never quite sure...
>>
>> Experimental science would not agree.
>
> You would need at least three.

Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
with an error estimate on the measurement.

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

#82402

(Hmm, would this (sub?)thread be a good candidate for alt.unix.geeks?
Leaving Newsgroups: as-is, but I don't subscribe to comp.lang.python.)


On 2026-03-04, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>.
>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>> never quite sure...
>>>
>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>
>> You would need at least three.
>
> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
> with an error estimate on the measurement.

You probably also need to specify some requirements or guarantees as to
the whereabouts of the three clocks relative to each other, as well as
their relative speeds, and the placement and speed relative to the
observers.


(Oh, and also that any processor used to cruch numbers related to these
observations isn't an Intel Pentium.)

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#82403

On 3/4/26 17:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> .
>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>> never quite sure...
>>>
>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>
>> You would need at least three.
> 
> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
> with an error estimate on the measurement.

   The rate at which time passes is dependent on
   the amount of mass/gravity/energy where the
   clock is located. That depends on the Earth,
   what's under it, the moon, the sun, the planets,
   nearby galaxies for that matter. As such if you
   have even two clocks, with enough decimal points,
   even on the same shelf they WILL start to diverge.

   Hmm ... now how the two clocks affect each OTHER,
   that could be interesting :-)

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

#82409

On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
> 
>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>> .
>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>> never quite sure...
>>>
>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>
>> You would need at least three.
> 
> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
> with an error estimate on the measurement.

No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space 
Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.

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

#82410

On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 20:13:28 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>>> never quite sure...
>>>>
>>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>>
>>> You would need at least three.
>>
>> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come
>> up with an error estimate on the measurement.
>
> No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The
> Space Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation
> as a check.

You’re conflating taking a measurement with making a command decision.

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

#82423

On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

> On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>> .
>>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>>> never quite sure...
>>>>
>>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>>
>>> You would need at least three.
>> 
>> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
>> with an error estimate on the measurement.
>
> No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space 
> Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.

And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

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

#82425

On 2026-03-05 18:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>> .
>>>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>>>> never quite sure...
>>>>>
>>>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>>>
>>>> You would need at least three.
>>>
>>> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
>>> with an error estimate on the measurement.
>>
>> No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space
>> Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
> 
> And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.

Different software? That one I did not know.

> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#82426

On 3/5/26 14:02, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-03-05 18:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>>>>> never quite sure...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would need at least three.
>>>>
>>>> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
>>>> with an error estimate on the measurement.
>>>
>>> No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space
>>> Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
>>
>> And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.
> 
> Different software? That one I did not know.


   Just means it'll be wrong for different reasons  :-)

   You can have 100 clocks, and they'll all drift away from
   each other for various reasons. As per Einstein, the rate
   of time passage varies from place to place, moment to
   moment. Then there are the usual probs with 'clocks'.

   Which of the 100 clocks is correct ? Correct relative
   to what ? Maybe they're all skewed and screwed.

   Our ability to measure VERY fine bits of time has
   revealed our inability to measure time - funny !

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

#82439

On 2026-03-05, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-03-05 18:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-03-05, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/4/26 15:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 Mar 2026 14:09:58 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>>>>> never quite sure...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would need at least three.
>>>>
>>>> Three would be better than two, but two is already enough to come up
>>>> with an error estimate on the measurement.
>>>
>>> No, because if two don't agree, one could be just plain wrong. The Space
>>> Shuttle system had three processors run the same computation as a check.
>>
>> And, IIRC, the third one was built and programmed by a different outfit.
>
> Different software? That one I did not know.

Five computers, not three. General Purpose Computers, GPCs. Was it "IBM
AP-101/S"? Four of them run the Primary Avionics Software System, PASS.

One of the five computers is selected to run the Backup Flight System,
BFS, which was indeed contracted to a different manufacturer and
designed independently of PASS, on purpose.

The OV avionics are described as FO/FS, Fail Operational / Fail Safe. If
there is disagreement or fluctuation, you can do e.g. majority vote. If
one is deemed bad, the same is still possible with the remaining three
(hence the "Fail Operational"). Then if a second one fails, you can't
use the nominal approach anymore.

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#82467

On Fri, 06 Mar 2026 00:12:35 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote:

> Five computers, not three. General Purpose Computers, GPCs. Was it "IBM
> AP-101/S"? Four of them run the Primary Avionics Software System, PASS.

I had to double take when I saw the initialism! I have spent a lot of this 
week immersed in an details of an old computer system which used General 
Peripheral Controllers.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

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

#82405

On 2026-03-04, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:

> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>
>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is never
>>> quite sure...
>> 
>> Experimental science would not agree.
>
> You would need at least three.

Hence the old mariners' saying that I once heard:
Never put to sea with two chronometers.  Always take one or three.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

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

#82411

On Thu, 05 Mar 2026 02:44:15 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2026-03-04, Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/4/26 13:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-03-04 21:01, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is
>>>> never quite sure...
>>>
>>> Experimental science would not agree.
>>
>> You would need at least three.
>
> Hence the old mariners' saying that I once heard: Never put to sea
> with two chronometers. Always take one or three.

Any scientist would tell you why that’s a load of nonsense.

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

#82396

On 04/03/2026 21.29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
[...]
>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is never
>> quite sure...
> 
> Experimental science would not agree.

Well, experimental science would *exactly* agree...

That's why it provides "uncertainty", together
with the experimental results.

bye,

-- 

piergiorgio

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

#82400

On 04/03/2026 21:14, Piergiorgio Sartor wrote:
> On 04/03/2026 21.29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> [...]
>>> A man with one clock knows what time it is.  A man with two is never
>>> quite sure...
>>
>> Experimental science would not agree.
> 
> Well, experimental science would *exactly* agree...
> 
> That's why it provides "uncertainty", together
> with the experimental results.
> 
> bye,
> 
+1.

-- 
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of 
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web