On 25 Feb 2006 15:00:37 -0800, Paul Rubin
<"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have at times the impression that many people who talk about Zen
> > philosophy confuse it with some home brewn mixture of platonism with
> > its transgressive move t
On 26 Feb 2006 14:55:04 -0800, Andrea Griffini wrote:
> IMO another language that would be hard to classify is COBOL ... but
> for other reasons :-)
According to Dijkstra:
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence."
That makes Cobol
Cameron Laird wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>
>>Lucid in the mid 80s that gone down a few years later. As it turned out
>>that time Lisp was not capable to survive in
"Crutcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I don't disagree that people do this. The history of "Zen and the
> Art of X" dates from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair", which is
> actually about Zen and Motorcycles.
Actually "Zen in the Art of Archery" by Eugen Herrigel, which was
about an a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kay Schluehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
.
>Lucid in the mid 80s that gone down a few years later. As it turned out
>that time Lisp was not capable to survive in what we call today a
>"heterog
I think that the classification has some meaning, even if of course any
language has different shades of both sides. I'd say that with python
is difficult to choose one of the two categories because it's good both
as a pratical language and as a mind-opener language.
IMO another language that woul
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:48:47 -0800, Crutcher wrote:
> My central thesis: you are using a poor understanding of language to
> classify languages into things you understand (tool languages) and
> things which _you_ find 'deep' (and difficult to learn), which you call
> 'Zen languages'. This is ridic
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
>
>>No, I don't disagree that people do this. The history of "Zen and the
>>Art of X" dates from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair", which is
>
>
> That's Maintenance, not Repair. Subtle but important distinction.
>
Since
Crutcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> No, I don't disagree that people do this. The history of "Zen and the
> Art of X" dates from "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair", which is
That's Maintenance, not Repair. Subtle but important distinction.
Alex
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/li
> My point is simply that, for some languages L,
> "Zen and the art of L" or "The Tao of L" are plausible
> titles ("Zen and the Art of Lisp Programming" would be plausible) but
> for some languages they wouldn't ("The Tao of Fortran" ?)
> Do you disagree?
No, I don't disagree that people do this.
André wrote:
> > If appearing silly is the price of satisfying your curiousity then so
> > be it. I would, however, like to point out that there is a well
> > established usage of the word "Zen" in computer science.
> [snip; excellent answer from John deleted.]
> > -John Coleman
>
> If I may add:
André wrote:
> Some "purist", like the Academie Francaise (or, apparently "Crutcher")
> seem to believe that "one" can restrict the meaning of words, or the
> evolution of language. The rest of us are happy to let language
> evolution take place to facilitate communication.
So instead of Zen of
John Coleman wrote:
> Crutcher wrote:
> > You are a very silly person. You have tripped so many of my internet
> > bullshit triggers that I think perhaps you are trolling. All languages
> > alter the way you think. They structure the nature of questions you can
> > ask, and problems you can solve.
Crutcher wrote:
> You are a very silly person. You have tripped so many of my internet
> bullshit triggers that I think perhaps you are trolling. All languages
> alter the way you think. They structure the nature of questions you can
> ask, and problems you can solve.
>
> Do you understand 'Zen',
Crutcher wrote:
> You are a very silly person.
Claudio
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Kay Schluehr wrote:
> John Coleman wrote:
> > Ron Stephens wrote:
> > > Actually, Python has the distinction of being both a great tool
> > > language *and* a great Zen language. That's what makes Python so cool
> > > ;-)))
> > >
> > > Ron Stephens
> > > Python411
> > > www.awaretek.com/python/ind
You are a very silly person. You have tripped so many of my internet
bullshit triggers that I think perhaps you are trolling. All languages
alter the way you think. They structure the nature of questions you can
ask, and problems you can solve.
Do you understand 'Zen', by which I mean, have you de
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 06:09:16 -0800, John Coleman wrote:
> Greetings,
>I have a rough classification of languages into 2 classes: Zen
> languages and tool languages. A tool language is a language that is,
> well, a *tool* for programming a computer. C is the prototypical tool
> language. Most l
"Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have at times the impression that many people who talk about Zen
> philosophy confuse it with some home brewn mixture of platonism with
> its transgressive move towards the true reality, a stoic hedonism of
> contemplation and the taoistic being-in-doi
John Coleman wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>
>>John Coleman wrote:
>>
>>> I have a rough classification of languages into 2 classes: Zen
>>>languages and tool languages. A tool language is a language that is,
>>>well, a *tool* for programming a computer. C is the prototypical tool
>>>language. Mos
John Coleman wrote:
> Ron Stephens wrote:
> > Actually, Python has the distinction of being both a great tool
> > language *and* a great Zen language. That's what makes Python so cool
> > ;-)))
> >
> > Ron Stephens
> > Python411
> > www.awaretek.com/python/index.html
>
> This would explain why the
John Coleman wrote:
> Greetings,
>I have a rough classification of languages into 2 classes: Zen
> languages and tool languages. A tool language is a language that is,
> well, a *tool* for programming a computer. C is the prototypical tool
> language. Most languages in the Algol family are tool
Bryan Olson wrote:
> John Coleman wrote:
> >I have a rough classification of languages into 2 classes: Zen
> > languages and tool languages. A tool language is a language that is,
> > well, a *tool* for programming a computer. C is the prototypical tool
> > language. Most languages in the Algo
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:31:33 GMT, Bryan Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I think that's a horrible classification. Every language is both.
I agree; it's horrible as a classification.
But it's interesting concepts. One might use them to discuss the design of
various languages, and how the us
John Coleman wrote:
>I have a rough classification of languages into 2 classes: Zen
> languages and tool languages. A tool language is a language that is,
> well, a *tool* for programming a computer. C is the prototypical tool
> language. Most languages in the Algol family are tool languages. V
I don't know if python is Zend.
It's quite minimalistic and it "flows" very well, so I guess it is a...
"Feng-shui" language?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"John Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
an interesting statement and question.
...
> So (assuming my classification makes sense) which is Python? The
> emphasis on simplicity and the beginner-friendly nature of it seems to
> put it in the tool category. On the
Kent Johnson wrote:
>
> Expanding on what Alex said :-)
*snip*
>
> Python is an excellent tool language, it is very pragmatic and powerful
*snip*
>
> Kent
"It's a good axe", Muddy waters said about his guitar when asked by some
heavy-mega guitar hero.
Python is practical tool for practical p
What is "zen"?
Is it something eatible (I'm hungry now)?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
John Coleman wrote:
> Greetings,
>I have a rough classification of languages into 2 classes: Zen
> languages and tool languages. A tool language is a language that is,
> well, a *tool* for programming a computer. C is the prototypical tool
> language. Most languages in the Algol family are tool
Given that python code is often described in terms of being 'pythonic' or
not, and that pythonic is a term that is apparently well agreed upon yet
seemingly impossible to define for someone who does not already understand
the word, python is probably a zen language.
max
--
http://mail.pytho
GEB perhaps?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Ron Stephens wrote:
> Actually, Python has the distinction of being both a great tool
> language *and* a great Zen language. That's what makes Python so cool
> ;-)))
>
> Ron Stephens
> Python411
> www.awaretek.com/python/index.html
This would explain why the question is so hard to answer. It is a
Mu.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Actually, Python has the distinction of being both a great tool
language *and* a great Zen language. That's what makes Python so cool
;-)))
Ron Stephens
Python411
www.awaretek.com/python/index.html
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
don't know but there is "Zen of Python".
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Greetings,
I have a rough classification of languages into 2 classes: Zen
languages and tool languages. A tool language is a language that is,
well, a *tool* for programming a computer. C is the prototypical tool
language. Most languages in the Algol family are tool languages. Visual
Basic and J
37 matches
Mail list logo
