* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Michael Sparks:
[Due to the appearance of reasoned discussion (it's not practical to
read it all!)
[...]
Therefore to say "in reality the implementation will be passing a
reference or pointer" is invalid. There is after all at least one
implementation that does not rely on such machine oriented language
details.
I'm sorry, but see above: in itself it's just yet another a fallacy.
And as an argument in a debate with me it's misrepresenting.
I see we are still all out of step with you.
Why did you snip the short argument?
Because it's irrelevant and fallacious.
If it's a fallacy then I'd
like to see a reasoned logical explanation of its fallaciousness.
Oh, you snipped it so that you didn't have to present it to readers.
That's dishonest, Steve Holden.
Requoting:
<quote>
Now let's move to the implementation aspects.
Python as a language is implemented in many languages. One of these
is C. There are compilers to C (pypy), C++ (shedskin), for the JVM
(Jython) and .net (Ironpython).
There is also an executable operation semantics for python,
which can be found here:
http://gideon.smdng.nl/2009/01/an-executable-operational-semantics-for-python/
This set of operational semantics is written in Haskell.
Haskell is a strictly pure, lazily evaluated language. It
therefore has no pointers or references, just values and names.
The implementation therefore cannot be in terms of references
and pointers.
At this point consider whether it's possible to implement Pascal in
Haskell.
If it is possible, then you have a problem wrt. drawing conclusions
about pointers in Pascal, uh oh, they apparently can't exist.
But if it is not possible to implement Pascal in Haskell, then Haskell
must be some etremely limited special-purpose language, not Turing
complete -- is that acceptable to you?
<quote>
This, if it says anything at all, appears to say that any
Turing-complete language has pointers in it, which is an absurdity.
As far as I can see, if someone says "implementing Python implies the
use of pointers" as you appear to be doing, then Michael's argument
neatly demolishes that argument by providing a counter-example: there is
an implementation of Python that does not use pointers.
That's meaningless.
But then so is maintaining that Python doesn't have references.
And so is your argument applied to Pascal, just to mention that again.
*You* brought Pascal into this, not me.
Of course. And so? Do you think that the/your argument applies to Pascal?
Just for your information, it does not work for Pascal.
Or any language. It is a fallacy. It does not say anything about Python, or
Pascal, or any language.
You, however, dismiss this as a fallacy, and suggests it somehow
misrepresents you. And yet you wonder why people call your behavior (not
you) paranoid.
On top of the multiple fallacies, dubious snipping of arguments,
statements that such arguments have not been presented (just after
snipping them), and general misleading insinuations and
misrepresentation, ad yet another bit of personal attack.
Do you understand what that may say to readers about you, Steve Holden?
I'm happy to let readers draw their own conclusions about us both.
I guess you are. For it is invariably so that most readers recall by
association, and a flood of flaming does yield an impression. As a technical
argument it's a fallacy, but do you care? No.
Apparently it's all to defend an indefensible, idiotic position. But I
think you're doing it at least partially for the fun of harassing someone.
Not at all. You have accused me of bullying behavior, but in truth you
are the bully, and we know what happens when you give in to bullies,
don't we?
After an uncountable number of flames of my person, many from you, I'm the
bullied, or victim, so to speak; as such I'm not the bully.
[...]
I sincerely hope that my reply does not offend or inflame you, since
that is not the intent. I do hope it educates you and puts
into context the responses you have gained from others.
After all, one simply shouting in a corner saying "YOU'RE ALL
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I'M RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT", when one does not to
understand what one is talking about does not tend to engender warm
fluffy feelings or sentiments of authority towards such an
individual. Be it me, you, or anyone else.
At the moment, you appear to me to be engaging in such a behaviour.
Now you don't know from Jack and probably don't care about my
viewpoint, but I would really appreciate it if you would try not to
be inflammatory in your response to this. (Since you do appear to
also have a need to have the last word)
Hoping this was useful on some level,
Yes.
I elected to respond to just /one/ of the many arguments you
presented.
The other arguments, about why there are no references in Python,
shared, however, the basic property of being logical fallacies
packaged in kilometers of rambling text.
And you can say this without, by your own admission, even reading it.
No, you can not quote any place I have said that I haven't read his
article. I did read most of it. So you are yet again within the span of
one posted article presenting untrue information that you know is not true.
I repeat the quote from you which you can read at the top of this post:
[Due to the appearance of reasoned discussion (it's not practical to
read it all!)
[...]
So now you say you read "most" of it.
I haven't said anything contradictory about that. If I had then you'd have
quoted it. You don't quote anything, so you're out on your usual
insinuate-things argumentation technique.
Even this statement is an
admission that there are parts you did not, and yet somehow *I* am the
liar? We are moving from the bizarre to the delusional here.
I'm sorry that I had to point out your relating untrue information that you knew
at the time was untrue.
That also applies to your snipping of the argument about Haskell, and subsequent
asking for such arguments as if they hadn't been given -- and snipped.
The poster explained at the start that he had some technically immaterial stuff
at the end of his article. I don't know whether I reached that. But anyway, the
article was just a series of fallacies like the one thinking an implementation
in Haskell could prove anything about the language so implemented, all wrapped
up in kilometers of rambling text.
Your attack of "bizarre" and "delusion" are the usual from Steve Holden.
You are injecting noise to bury an argument that you didn't like. You tried
first snipping it from your response. Now you're trying the noise angle again.
Cheers & hth.,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
