On 2012-05-02 14:44:36 +, jaialai.technol...@gmail.com said:
He may be nuts
But he's right: programmers are pretty much fuckwits[*]: if you think
that's not true you are not old enough.
[*] including me, especially.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 2012-04-03 00:52:35 +0100, Jürgen Exner said:
Oh, that's why it is tought in trade schools alongside butchery,
plumbing, masonry, and chimney sweeping and why you don't find any
programming classes at university.
So, you know, no one would do law or medicine at a university. Oh, wait.
--
On 2011-08-02 15:41:06 +0100, ccc31807 said:
Most of these are tech companies. Tech companies are very important,
but so are other kinds of companies. What do manufacturing companies
use, like Ford and Toyota, energy companies like BP and Exxon,
pharmaceutical companies, consumer product compan
On 2010-10-13 14:20:30 +0100, Steven D'Aprano said:
ncorrect -- it's not necessarily so that the ratio of the circumference
to the radius of a circle is always the same number. It could have turned
out that different circles had different ratios.
But pi is much more basic than that, I think.
On 2010-10-13 13:21:29 +0100, BartC said:
My money would have been on 0.25, based on using 1.0 for a 360°
circular angle. It seems far more attractive than using the
arbitrary-looking 6.28...
It may look arbitrary, but it isn't: it's about as non-arbitrary as it
is possible to be.
--
http:
On 2010-10-13 02:00:46 +0100, BartC said:
But what exactly *is* this number? Is it 0.25, 1.57 or 90?
Its pi/2, the same way 90% is 9/10.
I can also write 12 inches, 1 foot, 1/3 yards, 1/5280 miles, 304.8 mm
and so on. They are all the same number, roughly 1/13100 of the
polar circumf
On 2010-10-12 20:46:26 +0100, BartC said:
You can't do all that if angles are just numbers.
I think that the discussion of percentages is relevant here: angles
//are// just numbers, but you're choosing a particular way of
displaying them (or reading them). 100% //is// 1, and 360° //is// 2π.
On 2010-10-12 11:16:09 +0100, Ben said:
Angles aren't "true" units, as they are ratios of two lengths. They
are more of a "pseudo" unit.
That's right, in fact angles are pure numbers. In general any function
which raises its argument to more than one power (for instance anything
with a non-
On 2010-09-30 13:36:17 +0100, Nick Keighley said:
there are some application domains where neither option would be
viewed as a satisfactory error handling strategy. Fly-by-wire, petro-
chemicals, nuclear power generation. Hell you'd expect better than
this from your phone!
People always give t
On 2010-09-28 14:39:27 +0100, Malcolm McLean said:
he problem is that if you allow expressions rather than terms then
the experssions can get arbitrarily complex. sqrt(1 inch + 1 Second),
for instance.
I can't imagine a context where 1 inch + 1 second would not be an
error, so this is a sligh
On 2010-09-28 10:55:19 +0100, Malcolm McLean said:
I'd like to design a language like this. If you add a quantity in
inches to a quantity in centimetres you get a quantity in (say)
metres. If you multiply them together you get an area, if you divide
them you get a dimeionless scalar. If you divi
On 2009-07-19 19:31:36 +0100, Frank Buss said:
(e.g. I
don't know of a free modern and stable Lisp implemenation with
mulithreading support for Windows, with a licence with which you can use it
in closed source commercial programs, like you can do with Python).
Openmcl seems reasonably stable
On Oct 9, 7:34 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> which lambda paper ?
Are you Ilias? I think you probably are.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Jun 11, 8:02 am, Twisted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2:42 am, Joachim Durchholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It is possible to write maintainable Perl.
>
> Interesting (spoken in the tone of someone hearing about a purported
> sighting of Bigfoot, or maybe a UFO).
>
I think it's
On May 4, 10:13 am, Tim Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway the experience of writing in Python was kind of interesting.
> [...] So one of the things I learned was "use a
> language with a decent compiler"[*] I think.
Bugger, I did not realise until too la
On May 4, 3:06 am, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Lisp compilers are much more advanced, for one thing.
Though I hesitate to respond in this thread (and I didn't actually
read the rest of the article) there's actually a valid point here.
The last programming job I did involved doing so
On 2007-03-09 07:00:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) said:
> (nee "One Laptop Per Child", OLPC, and once known as the "$100 laptop")
> uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's
> slated to be the most widely distributed Python distro if it hits even
> half of
17 matches
Mail list logo
