Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Terry Reedy wrote: Cameron Laird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . Interesting quote from Guido: If the same effort were poured into speeding up Python as Sun devoted to Java, Python would be better than Java in every respect. Maybe companies such as Intel, IBM, and Sun would devote resources to optimizing Python on their hardware if the language had an ISO standard, as do C, C++, and Fortran, and were less of a moving target. OTOH, that could slow the development of the language. I have wondered why the dynamic languages such as Perl and Python tend not to have ISO standards. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . Maybe companies such as Intel, IBM, and Sun would devote resources to optimizing Python on their hardware if the language had an ISO standard, as do C, C++, and Fortran, and were less of a moving target. OTOH, that could slow the development of the language. I have wondered why the dynamic languages such as Perl and Python tend not to have ISO standards. There's a LOT to say on the subjects you raise. It might be a while before anyone with a background in the appropriate areas tackles them. Perhaps we'll return to this ... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Hey, Jeff Hobbs got the last word. ;-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Advocates of languages and programming methodologies sometimes compare the current version of their favorite language to an old version of their disfavored language, resulting in skewed comparisons. For example, Conway writes Interpreted languages do two things much better than compiled languages. Firstly, they provide more sophisticated programming tools and support for more advanced programming techniques. For example, Perl provides hashed look-up tables and arbitrary-length arrays as core data types. C doesn't even have a proper string type. Likewise, Perl's data sorting facilities are integrated into the language, so the sorting criteria are directly programmable. Having all the basic tools of programming (i.e. high-level data types and common algorithms) built into the language, rather than having to build them yourself, means that you need to write less code to solve a given problem. I think most of the advanced programming techniques he mentions are part of the C++ Standard Library. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
That was a great article. I really enjoyed it. We need more like it. Robert -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Cameron Laird wrote: *DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . It would have been nice to put in a blurb for some of the cool stuff planned for 8.5. That way people could see that things are *happening* in the Tcl world and Tcl is moving forward language wise. That doesn't take away from the article though. It was just a thought. Robert -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . It would have been nice to put in a blurb for some of the cool stuff planned for 8.5. That way people could see that things are *happening* in the Tcl world and Tcl is moving forward language wise. That doesn't take away from the article though. It was just a thought. . . . Robert, though just a thought, I want to say a few words in response: you're wrong. Or, you're ambiguous: I think you're saying, To appro- priately infect readers with the enthusiasm for Tcl that you (and I) think they deserve to have, it is necessary to anticipate the objection that Tcl is 'dormant' and convince them otherwise. Here's the problem: a magazine needs to be written for its readers, rather than its authors or any other actors (from a business stand- point, content ultimately is designed to serve advertisers, but that rather dreary reality is a distraction we'll ignore for now). Lynn's job was to profile the languages. To keep her scope manageable, she did not address the cultures of the different languages. As I under- stand her thoughts, she doesn't try to help the languages, but rather help the readers. It feels as though I'm hitting this tack of a point with a too-heavy sledgehammer. I sure don't want to offend you, Robert; I *do* want to take the opportunity to distinguish the different motivations afoot here. While I think you already understand this, I'll make it explicit: Lynn deserves our encouragement for her openness to ideas like use of scripting languages, not our censure for failing to go far enough. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Cameron Laird wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . It would have been nice to put in a blurb for some of the cool stuff planned for 8.5. That way people could see that things are *happening* in the Tcl world and Tcl is moving forward language wise. That doesn't take away from the article though. It was just a thought. . . . Robert, though just a thought, I want to say a few words in response: you're wrong. Or, you're ambiguous: I think you're saying, To appro- priately infect readers with the enthusiasm for Tcl that you (and I) think they deserve to have, it is necessary to anticipate the objection that Tcl is 'dormant' and convince them otherwise. Here's the problem: a magazine needs to be written for its readers, rather than its authors or any other actors (from a business stand- point, content ultimately is designed to serve advertisers, but that rather dreary reality is a distraction we'll ignore for now). Lynn's job was to profile the languages. To keep her scope manageable, she did not address the cultures of the different languages. As I under- stand her thoughts, she doesn't try to help the languages, but rather help the readers. It feels as though I'm hitting this tack of a point with a too-heavy sledgehammer. I sure don't want to offend you, Robert; I *do* want to take the opportunity to distinguish the different motivations afoot here. While I think you already understand this, I'll make it explicit: Lynn deserves our encouragement for her openness to ideas like use of scripting languages, not our censure for failing to go far enough. The size of you hammer was okay with me. It takes a lot to offend me and having delt with people from this group I know that most of the stuff is constructive in nature anyway. : ) I did take the opportunity to submit the overall article to OSNews with an extra link to the Tcl article. Robert -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Advocates of languages and programming methodologies sometimes compare the current version of their favorite language to an old version of their disfavored language, resulting in skewed comparisons. For example, Conway writes Interpreted languages do two things much better than compiled languages. Firstly, they provide more sophisticated programming tools and support for more advanced programming techniques. For example, Perl provides hashed look-up tables and arbitrary-length arrays as core data types. C doesn't even have a proper string type. Likewise, Perl's data sorting facilities are integrated into the language, so the sorting criteria are directly programmable. Having all the basic tools of programming (i.e. high-level data types and common algorithms) built into the language, rather than having to build them yourself, means that you need to write less code to solve a given problem. I think most of the advanced programming techniques he mentions are part of the C++ Standard Library. In principle, yes--and that's certainly how C++ fans typically feel. Frankly, Perl (and Python ...) implementations remain more polished and mature than what the STL and allies offer. I agree in general that people often say, I like Y in year N better than I liked X in year N-6, therefore Y is better than N. Damian's not particularly prone to that error, though, and I think, in the case at hand, C++ really *does* continue to lag. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Getting the word to conventional programmers
*DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Cameron Laird wrote: *DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here, though IE shows it fine. :-( -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Peter Hansen schrieb:
Cameron Laird wrote:
*DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in
URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp .
Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here,
though IE shows it fine. :-(
Mozilla 1.7.3 shows it fine, too. FF bug or config issue?
--
---
Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel +49-241-93878-0
E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\n'.decode('base64')
---
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Peter Maas wrote: Peter Hansen schrieb: Cameron Laird wrote: *DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here, though IE shows it fine. :-( Mozilla 1.7.3 shows it fine, too. FF bug or config issue? FF didn't show it to me earlier, but it seems to work now. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Cameron Laird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . Interesting quote from Guido: If the same effort were poured into speeding up Python as Sun devoted to Java, Python would be better than Java in every respect. TJR -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Terry Reedy wrote: Cameron Laird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . Interesting quote from Guido: If the same effort were poured into speeding up Python as Sun devoted to Java, Python would be better than Java in every respect. Except from a the standard, powerful, looks-good-everywhere-and-has-a-tree-widget GUI toolkit? :) Seriously, I think this is *very* important. jfj -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Jeff Schwab wrote: Peter Maas wrote: Peter Hansen schrieb: Cameron Laird wrote: *DevSource* profiles The State of the Scripting Universe in URL: http://www.devsource.com/article2/0,1759,1778141,00.asp . Which, sadly, doesn't seem to work with Firefox here, though IE shows it fine. :-( Mozilla 1.7.3 shows it fine, too. FF bug or config issue? FF didn't show it to me earlier, but it seems to work now. Thanks for the tip, Jeff. It is now working for me as well, with zero changes to my setup. Odd -Peter -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Getting the word to conventional programmers
Except from a the standard, powerful, looks-good-everywhere-and-has-a-tree-widget GUI toolkit? :) Seriously, I think this is *very* important. Yes, and a modern toolset/IDE. Generators and decorators and all that are nice, but their usefulness pales in comparison to having a decent IDE or GUI toolkit. Though I might disagree that Java has a good GUI toolkit, it has better tools than any language out there IMO. And I don't really like Java personally. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
