On May 13, 10:35 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On May 13, 10:24 am, Dave Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free > > > software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community, > > > specially considering both free general purpose and scientific > > > programming languages. > > > Perhaps. Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual > > (and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than > > the cost of just one book on Python. > > > I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to > > use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of > > time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder > > (unless, of course, their time is worth $0). > > > Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming > > Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster > > (Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). So again, since > > many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people > > will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year. > > > Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more > > motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This weekend, > > Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the > > languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and > > not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will > > be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be > > implementing. > > > Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those > > awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and > > those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The difference: I > > can't afford to ignore users. > > > But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see. > > > On May 13, 8:34 am, hdante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On May 13, 10:58 am, Paul McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On May 13, 8:32 am, Dave Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi > > > > > > I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. There is value in all > > > > > interaction. > > > > > Not this interaction, I'm afraid. What irritates *me* about > > > > castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads > > > > here. If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected > > > > ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. These rambling > > > > stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess) > > > > his idea of a joke. But they are certainly not worth your time in > > > > trying to respond to them. > > > > > -- Paul > > > > I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its > > > messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much > > > smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P > > > > The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free > > > software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community, > > > specially considering both free general purpose and scientific > > > programming languages.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Flaming Thunder, the lightning one, looked like [ 255, 210, 255 ], but > the next thing I thought was -40 on green.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Now get this: I am talking to someone. #define someone now. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list