Hi Nick,
I have just checked all the links you posted, they are indeed very
interesting and very efficient. However, I think those are very complicate
in terms of installation and setup, and I still see a lot of usages for a
multi-process scheduler.
2016-08-28 20:32 GMT-07:00 Nick Coghlan :
> O
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Ken Kundert
wrote:
> Because by focusing on the implementation details, we miss the big picture.
> We
> have already done that, and we ended up going down countless ratholes.
They're important ratholes though. Without digging into those
questions, all you have i
On 29 August 2016 at 13:40, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> On 2016-08-28 20:29, Ken Kundert wrote:
>>
>> What is wrong with have two ways of doing things? We have many ways of
>> specifying the value of the integer 16: 0b1, 0o20, 16, 0x10, 16L,
>
>
> Zen of Python: "There should be one
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> On 2016-08-28 20:29, Ken Kundert wrote:
>>
>> What is wrong with have two ways of doing things? We have many ways of
>> specifying the value of the integer 16: 0b1, 0o20, 16, 0x10, 16L,
>
>
> Zen of Python: "There should b
On 29 August 2016 at 11:44, Ken Kundert wrote:
> When working with a general purpose programming language, the above numbers
> become:
>
> 780kpc -> 7.8e+05
> 108MPa -> 1.08e+08
> 600TW -> 6e+14
> 3.2Gb -> 3.2e+09
> 53pm -> 5.3e-11
> $8G-> 8e+09
A better comparison
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 08:26:38PM -0700, Brendan Barnwell wrote:
> On 2016-08-28 18:44, Ken Kundert wrote:
> >When working with a general purpose programming language, the above numbers
> >become:
> >
> > 780kpc -> 7.8e+05
[...]
For the record, I don't know what kpc might mean. "kilo pico spe
On 2016-08-28 20:29, Ken Kundert wrote:
What is wrong with have two ways of doing things? We have many ways of
specifying the value of the integer 16: 0b1, 0o20, 16, 0x10, 16L,
Zen of Python: "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious
way to do it."
If Python didn't
On 29 August 2016 at 11:50, Thales filizola costa wrote:
> What do you guys think? How to improve it? Is it relevant enough to be
> incorporated to std python ?
There are actually quite a few distributed schedulers out there (which
can expand beyond a single machine), but "python multiprocess
sch
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:33:16PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ken Kundert
> wrote:
> > When working with a general purpose programming language, the above numbers
> > become:
> >
> > 780kpc -> 7.8e+05
> > 108MPa -> 1.08e+08
> > 600TW -> 6e+14
> >
On 2016-08-28 18:44, Ken Kundert wrote:
When working with a general purpose programming language, the above numbers
become:
780kpc -> 7.8e+05
108MPa -> 1.08e+08
600TW -> 6e+14
3.2Gb -> 3.2e+09
53pm -> 5.3e-11
$8G-> 8e+09
Notice that the numbers become longe
> It makes the language needlessly complicated, has no benefit I've discerned
> (vs using libraries), and is a magnet for a large class of bugs.
Well the comment about bugs in speculation that does not fit with the extensive
experience in the electrical engineering community. But other than that,
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Ken Kundert
wrote:
> When working with a general purpose programming language, the above numbers
> become:
>
> 780kpc -> 7.8e+05
> 108MPa -> 1.08e+08
> 600TW -> 6e+14
> 3.2Gb -> 3.2e+09
> 53pm -> 5.3e-11
> $8G-> 8e+09
>
These are n
On 2016-08-29 02:44, Ken Kundert wrote:
[snip]
The way the scientific and engineering communities predominately write real
numbers is by using SI scale factors. These numbers almost always represent
physical quantities, so it is common to write the number with scale factor and
units. So for e
On 2016-08-29 02:50, Thales filizola costa wrote:
Hey guys,
I was recently involved in a job change, and for that I have been doing
a lot of programming interviews (white board questions). One common
question on those interviews were: "how to implement a scheduler?"
follow up by "how to make it
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> In fact, at a certain point I proposed that we should deal with rounding
> issues by calling the minimum domain specific time unit an attosecond, and
> only use integers in using this unit. That wasn't what was adopted, but it
> wasn't absurd.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Ken Kundert
wrote:
> When working with a general purpose programming language, the above numbers
> become:
>
> 780kpc -> 7.8e+05
> 108MPa -> 1.08e+08
> 600TW -> 6e+14
> 3.2Gb -> 3.2e+09
> 53pm -> 5.3e-11
> $8G-> 8e+09
>
> Notice tha
-1 on Python ever having any syntactic support for SI scale factors.
It makes the language needlessly complicated, has no benefit I've discerned
(vs using libraries), and is a magnet for a large class of bugs.
Btw, the argument below feels dishonest in another respect. Within a domain
there is a
Hey guys,
I was recently involved in a job change, and for that I have been doing a
lot of programming interviews (white board questions). One common question
on those interviews were: "how to implement a scheduler?" follow up by "how
to make it multi-processing?". I have to confess that I only ha
Wow, things have suddenly turned very negative. I understand that this is very
normal for these types of forums where it is easy to lose sight of the big
picture. So let me try to refocus this discussion again.
MOTIVATION
The way the scientific and engineering communities predominately write r
On Sunday, August 28, 2016, ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN wrote:
>
> We have a term in our lexicon "duck typing" that traces its origins, in
> part to a quote along the lines of
> "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, ..."
>
> ...
>
> In that case, it would be far more appropriate for use to
On 8/28/2016 12:24 PM, ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN wrote:
After sending this proposal
to replace 'duck typing' with 'witch typing'
to the Python list,
where it was mostly viewed as a joke
it was suggested that I redirect it here
by Mark Lawrence, who likes to joke also.
I recommend that pe
After sending this proposal to the Python list, it was suggested that I
redirect it here ("recommended" likely being to strong a word).
We have a term in our lexicon "duck typing" that traces its origins, in part to
a quote along the lines of
"If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, ..."
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:37:00AM +0100, Paul Moore wrote:
> And if you're concerned about larger numbers, such as 160, and
> the need to count zeroes, I'd argue that you should name such a
> constant - and Python 3.6 will allow you to write it as 16_000_000_000
> in any case, making thin
On 27 August 2016 at 23:39, Arek Bulski wrote:
> They can be used simply out of convenience, like 4K is a shorthand for 4000.
> And 9G is definitely easier to write and *therefore less prone to error*
> than a full literal.
I dispute "less prone to error". Like it or not, there are a lot of
peopl
24 matches
Mail list logo
