Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #81289 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-01-18 23:10 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-01-21 04:14 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-18 23:10 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-19 11:00 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-19 17:33 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 12:05 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-20 19:01 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:22 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:05 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-01-20 05:04 +0200
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-20 03:11 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-19 23:21 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-01-20 14:25 +0100
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2026-01-20 14:30 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-19 22:59 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 08:42 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-01-20 12:17 +0200
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 17:13 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-01-20 17:40 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-01-20 19:01 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-01-20 10:18 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-20 20:16 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-01-21 07:55 +0200
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-01-21 08:25 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-21 22:47 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-01-22 08:42 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-20 21:33 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:27 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 18:02 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-01-21 06:50 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-21 22:49 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-02 14:50 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-02 15:07 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-02 21:19 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 21:03 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-03 08:52 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-03 12:57 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-03 13:53 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 11:51 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:09 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 20:50 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-03 02:58 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-02 22:23 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-03 19:57 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 11:52 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-02 20:20 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-03 00:18 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-02-04 04:18 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-03 23:45 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-02-04 05:14 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 00:51 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 08:24 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 11:56 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 14:50 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 16:44 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-04 09:15 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-04 19:26 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:00 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-05 08:32 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:02 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 21:58 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:34 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 19:58 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-04 15:09 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-04 13:05 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:04 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:54 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:03 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:49 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-05 08:29 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 14:06 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-02-05 14:59 +0000
C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 08:06 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-05 16:33 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-05 18:12 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 22:40 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-06 04:54 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-05 17:33 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-05 09:57 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-06 04:12 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 00:03 -0500
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 11:28 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-02-06 20:03 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-06 20:59 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 13:55 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-06 22:29 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-06 14:43 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 15:36 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-07 20:49 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-07 21:26 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-07 22:00 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-09 06:53 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-08 01:55 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-08 08:30 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-09 06:53 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-08 11:04 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-08 20:07 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-13 11:30 -0800
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 21:40 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-13 21:48 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-14 07:06 -0500
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-14 00:41 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-14 07:16 -0500
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 11:53 +0000
Re: C/C++ timeline (was Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 09:21 -0800
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-05 22:38 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-06 05:05 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-02-05 15:55 +0100
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-05 17:26 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-04 22:12 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 23:35 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:16 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 22:13 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-04 21:42 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 09:28 +0000
Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-02-05 13:45 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 14:14 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-02-05 15:09 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 16:03 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-02-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-07 01:12 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 21:59 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:15 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-07 16:01 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 11:09 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:10 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 19:27 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-05 20:51 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-06 10:45 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 21:44 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:29 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-07 16:31 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-08 10:25 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-08 20:13 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-08 22:39 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-09 04:58 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 10:04 -0800
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-09 23:39 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-10 08:00 -0800
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-10 23:02 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-11 06:57 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-11 20:22 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-12 04:48 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 01:04 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-12 12:52 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-12 21:36 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-13 00:02 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-13 00:09 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:18 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-09 09:56 -0800
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-05 20:48 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-06 10:42 +0000
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-06 21:31 -0500
Re: Memory Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-07 12:23 +0000
Memory Allocatiuon Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-02-05 13:37 +0000
Re: Memory Allocatiuon Safety (Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-05 14:03 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-20 10:16 +0000
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-01-20 17:58 -0500
Re: Python: A Little Trick For Every Need The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-01-21 04:14 +0000
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-18 23:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Python: A Little Trick For Every Need |
| Message-ID | <KxCdncm5tZ0oM_D0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
How do you restart a Python script from WITHIN the script ? Try : os.execv(sys.executable, ['python3'] + [sys.argv[0]]) The syntax has to be exact. This kills the running script and restarts it, all neat and clean. My use was a script that did a lot of video and network stuff - sometimes perhaps a bit unclean. Every so often something, esp the networking, may start to get balky. Keep track of fails, and, if enough .... Next little thing ... have rather large numbers of lines inside 'try/except's. But WHERE was the exact cause of the exception. Actually had to search around a bit to find something that would report both the error AND the line number : exc_type, exc_obj, exc_tb = sys.exc_info() The 'tb' reports the exact line number ... kind of like what you'd see if running the script from a terminal without 'try' protection. 'obj' is a fairly plaintext note of the exact error like 'divison by zero'. These things can be put into a log file. So, you can have your 'try' protection AND see exactly what/where the screw-up was. I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. It Just Works. But not as fast as 'C'.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-19 11:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10kl2sr$8rkl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81289 |
On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: > I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS > almost infinitely useful these days. The look and > feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. > It Just Works. I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. -- “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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-19 17:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pfGcneu6wai_LPP0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81294 |
On 1/19/26 06:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS >> almost infinitely useful these days. The look and >> feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >> It Just Works. > > I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. I do a little FORTRAN from time to time. LOVE Pascal, use it often. BASIC ... there are several flavors for Linux. Once it became 'structurable' it really wasn't all that bad. 'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot of work with strings is required, well ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 12:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10knr31$16dj0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81320 |
On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote: > 'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind > of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot > of work with strings is required, well .... I love strings in C. I spent so long programming with them.... -- "The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll look exactly the same afterwards." Billy Connolly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ciQbR.190522$yE3b.53476@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #81342 |
On 2026-01-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote: > >> 'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind >> of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot >> of work with strings is required, well .... > > I love strings in C. > > I spent so long programming with them.... ...that I've built my own personal library full of functions that do all sorts of nifty things with strings. -- /~\ 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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10kopc0$1hv2g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81364 |
On 20/01/2026 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-01-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote: >> >>> 'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind >>> of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot >>> of work with strings is required, well .... >> >> I love strings in C. >> >> I spent so long programming with them.... > > ...that I've built my own personal library full of functions > that do all sorts of nifty things with strings. > Almost. I just know how to approach using them . The c library has all you need at the basic level -- All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is fully understood.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 18:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdOcnf8NM5mnk-30nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81372 |
On 1/20/26 15:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 20/01/2026 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-01-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> 'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind >>>> of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot >>>> of work with strings is required, well .... >>> >>> I love strings in C. >>> >>> I spent so long programming with them.... >> >> ...that I've built my own personal library full of functions >> that do all sorts of nifty things with strings. >> > Almost. I just know how to approach using them . The c library has all > you need at the basic level I, you too apparently, got into this stuff way back. The selection of programming languages expanded rapidly and everyone was SURE they had the Better Way. Meanwhile I did FORTRAN, some COBOL, Pascal and 'C' when they came along, even BASIC and masm stuff. I became a coding polytheist. Hey, even have Python scripts that evoke little 'C' apps and suck up the results. Some apps just have a certain 'feel' ... and that tells me "this would be better in 'C'" or "this would be better for Pascal" or "this would work more easily in Python" and so forth. Yes, you can right the length of Route 66 on a mule, but it's much better in a pop-top Cadillac. I too have my little lib of handy 'C' string stuff, some of the ideas borrowed from PICK-OS (a lot of my junk uses multi-valued records, mostly because I *like* them). However if the app is going to be very 'stringy' I'll go with Pascal or Python instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 18:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jdOcnfwNM5nVl-30nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81342 |
On 1/20/26 07:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote: >> 'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind >> of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot >> of work with strings is required, well .... > > I love strings in C. Whips & chains too ? :-) > I spent so long programming with them.... Oh, you CAN ... but its a hell of a lot easier in Pascal or Python.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 05:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <31stmk1pd8a7q0ekv0is4bd1l5aorcgo95@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #81294 |
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 11:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS >> almost infinitely useful these days. The look and >> feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >> It Just Works. > >I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't produce stand-alone programs. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 03:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10kmroo$sorm$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81326 |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when > it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't > produce stand-alone programs. Of course it can produce stand-alone programs. <https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? <https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-19 23:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dj2dnaWCnepan_L0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81327 |
On 1/19/26 22:11, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when >> it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't >> produce stand-alone programs. > > Of course it can produce stand-alone programs. > > <https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? > <https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. > <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python. Yep, several approaches. Compilers and sort-of 'auto-run' applications too (oft seen in Linux apps now). The biggest prob with Python is the vast scope of sub-VERSIONS. If you're gonna use a compiler you kinda HAVE to include all the libs in YOUR current system or it won't work widely. Anyway, these days I most always proto in Python, get the bugs/logic ironed out. Then if needed I re-write in 'C' or Pascal. Or, once in a while, in FORTRAN - just to annoy :-) Anyway, 'cython' or 'Nutika' are adequate compilers. However Python IS just 'C' in disguise ... one line, one word, can run a lot of hidden 'C' code. The 'interpreted' aspect isn't THAT important anymore. "Ease" IS still important. Most of my post-retirement stuff uses OpenCV and 'PIL' stuff. STILL haven't gotten OpenCV to work reliably in 'C' alas ... always some little issue. Works very easily in Python though ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 14:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10knvo4$18ai6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #81327 |
On 20/01/2026 04:11, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when >> it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't >> produce stand-alone programs. > > Of course it can produce stand-alone programs. > > <https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? > <https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. > <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python. And Dropbox and BitTorrent. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10mv4bb.gdob.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> |
| In reply to | #81327 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:11 this Tuesday (GMT): > On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when >> it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't >> produce stand-alone programs. > > Of course it can produce stand-alone programs. > ><https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? ><https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. ><https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python. There's also yt-dlp thats written in pure python. -- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-19 22:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dj2dnaqCneoUYPP0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #81326 |
On 1/19/26 22:04, Steve Hayes wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 11:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher > <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS >>> almost infinitely useful these days. The look and >>> feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >>> It Just Works. >> >> I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. > > I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. > > The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when > it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't > produce stand-alone programs. 'Interpreted' can be very FLEXIBLE - and easier to debug. And Python has been, and will further be, improved to increase speed. With current CPUs it's now 'fast enough' for a vast number of purposes already. It is also 'understandable enough' - while 'C' tends to be cryptic to most. Oh, there are compilers ... DO use the op to include all the libraries though, otherwise it won't be portable. I *used* BASIC for relatively large apps, DO use Pascal rather frequently. Python is great for a lot of things, or as a quick way to work out protos to eventually be translated to 'C' or Pascal. There aren't many computer langs I'm keen to diss. Most had, and can still have, their place in the Great Scheme. I just downloaded a COBOL IDE ... gonna mess with that some more. It IS very capable, just, well, 'wordy'. Still always install a FORTH system too, though I have not done any FORTH in a couple of decades. But .... Some solutions just have a 'perfect feel' ... and that's never always in the same lang.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 08:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwvh5sgoeu7.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #81326 |
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS >>> almost infinitely useful these days. The look and >>> feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >>> It Just Works. >> >>I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. > > I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. > > The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when > it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't > produce stand-alone programs. That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that enough to impact language choice. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 12:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9hlumk1lodkjlm9a6egbo2fa79f85v6mad@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #81333 |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >>>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS >>>> almost infinitely useful these days. The look and >>>> feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >>>> It Just Works. >>> >>>I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. >> >> I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. >> >> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when >> it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't >> produce stand-alone programs. > >That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >enough to impact language choice. So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter? -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwva4y8gqbb.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #81339 |
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote: >>>>> I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS >>>>> almost infinitely useful these days. The look and >>>>> feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++. >>>>> It Just Works. >>>> >>>>I've not used any of those languages in decades, either. >>> >>> I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal. >>> >>> The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when >>> it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't >>> produce stand-alone programs. >> >>That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>enough to impact language choice. > > So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter? I’ve no idea, but it doesn’t matter. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Python-20260120183939@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #81357 |
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
>I’ve no idea, but it doesn’t matter.
There are tools out there for turning Python code into executables,
and maybe some folks here have already used one executable
generated this way without even realizing it was written in Python.
Normally, Python gets compiled into intermediate bytecode that
the interpreter runs, but lately there have been experiments
with JIT compilers.
BASIC
10 LET sum = 0
20 FOR i = 1 TO 100
30 LET sum = sum + i
40 NEXT i
50 PRINT sum
Python
sum(range(1,101))
BASIC
10 FOR i = 1 TO 10
20 FOR j = 1 TO 10
30 FOR k = 1 TO 10
40 PRINT i; j; k
50 NEXT k
60 NEXT j
70 NEXT i
Python
from itertools import product
for i, j, k in product(range(1, 11), repeat=3):
print(i, j, k)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ciQbR.190521$yE3b.127047@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #81357 |
On 2026-01-20, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes: > >> So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter? > > I’ve no idea, but it doesn’t matter. I blew the dust off a bit of Python code I threw together a while ago to get the feel of the language. It turned out that I no longer had a Python interpreter. So I re-installed one. Short answer to the question: No. Slightly longer answer: Who cares, it's in the repository. -- /~\ 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]
| From | John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-01-20 10:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20260120101834.00000f70@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #81339 |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200 Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: > So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter? I mean, nothing but the kernel is truly "built-in," but it's right in the repository in every major distro and underlies a large number of fairly core-ish utilities (e.g. Synaptic,) so...more or less, yes? Highly unlikely that you'd find a modern Linux environment outside of (maybe) the embedded space where you *couldn't* run Python programs, if it came to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web