> Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when > is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses > it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...
All of the calculators and textbooks that elementary school students use, use "^" for powers. Just like Flaming Thunder does. I haven't seen "**" for powers since FORTRAN. On May 13, 10:38 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > True. But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI > > scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux > > server. And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language > > libraries. And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have > > OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that > > Flaming Thunder already does. > > Your bets don't count anything here. These things don't exist, so don't brag > on them being superior. > > > For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and > > CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for > > other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is > > acceptable. > > Quite a revealing statement I'd say. And unless you don't show any > real-world site running on FT that needs things like sessions, cookies, > database-connectivity, unicode and a ton more of stuff FT doesn't support > out-of-the-box or through 3rd-party-libs, I wouldn't mention "the people" > as well. So far, *all* that you've been showing on your site regarding CGI > are toy-scripts. Nothing more. > > >> And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles. > > > Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. I've found > > that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead > > of products that were easy for the developer. > > This shows how much you don't know about customers, and their needs. A > customer gives a s**t about 5-10 times faster sites. They care if it is > *fast enough*, but beyond that they don't bother. But what *always* bothers > them is development time & flexibility. Because that directly affects the > price they pay. > > And if a average man-day costs $600 (which is not expensive), and the > project is of average size of a couple of man-months - well, you care about > mathematics, do the math yourself what that means that FT lacks anything > but a simple CGI-interface. > > > And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles. > > Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency > > (which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think > > that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains > > cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities. > > It does require more, because it lacks all the libs and 3rdparty-libs. And > because it lacks features such as OO and other stuff, it will be harder to > write these as well as use them. > > Show me how to beat a quickstarted TurboGears/Django webproject. *Then* you > can talk business here. > > > Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why > > one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder): > > > Write 10^2. > > > but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer > > 8 (Python): > > > Print 10^2 > > > then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the > > realm of measurable ease-of-use. > > Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when > is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses > it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that... > > Even *if* that would be true, how does a perceived advantage in one field FT > was explicitly created for show that it is the generally better one and > understandable one for more diverse applications? > > Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list