On Dec 14, 3:15 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:48 pm, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2007 2:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > "Ron Provo
John Nagle wrote:
> Eric S. Johansson wrote:
>> John Nagle wrote:
>>> Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
>>> communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not
>>> all that
>>> great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command li
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> John Nagle wrote:
>> Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
>> communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not
>> all that
>> great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command line
>> parameters, but all
John Nagle wrote:
> Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
> communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not all that
> great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command line
> parameters, but all you get back is a status code, plu
> John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (JN) wrote:
>JN> There's CORBA, for example, and in theory
>JN> you can script OpenOffice and Gnome via CORBA. But nobody does that.
>JN> Exercise: write a Python program to convert a ".doc" file to a ".pdf"
>JN> file by invoking OpenOffice via CORBA. At
> Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (SD) wrote:
>SD> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a disservice by
>SD> describing Python as an interpreted language. Python is compiled. It has
>SD> a compiler. It even has a built-in function "compile". It's just not
>SD> compi
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:59:16 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> In any case, I would say that your exercise is the Wrong Way to go about
> it. A task as simple as "produce PDF output from this file" shouldn't
> need access to the internals of the OpenOffice GUI application. The Right
> Way (in som
On 15 Des, 02:59, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> oowriter --print some.doc | ps2pdf
> encapsulate, encapsulate. Unfortunately, apps using inter-app
> communication tend to do the opposite.
That pipe is a form of IPC as well.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:26:54 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
> Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
> communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not all
> that great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command
> line parameters, but a
Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
> learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, "Why would you
> write that in a scripting language?" Whenever I
On Dec 14, 2:48 pm, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 2:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
On Dec 14, 2007 2:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
> >
On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
> learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, "Why would you
> write t
Chris Mellon wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2007 2:07 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:43:18 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the
>> following in comp.lang.python:
>>
>>> I still wait to see any clear, unambiguous definition of "scripting
>>
On Dec 14, 2007 2:07 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:43:18 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the
> following in comp.lang.python:
>
> >
> > I still wait to see any clear, unambiguous definition of "scripting
> > language". Which one
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> http://acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=273
An interesting quote from that:
> If you combine Simula and Lisp—Lisp didn’t have data structures, it had
> instances of objects—you would have a dynamic type system that would
> give you the range of
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:32:23 -0800, sturlamolden wrote:
> On 13 Des, 02:19, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>
>> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a disservice
>> by describing Python as an interpreted language. Python is compiled. It
>> has
On 13 Des, 02:19, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a disservice by
> describing Python as an interpreted language. Python is compiled. It has
> a compiler. It even has a built-in function "compile".
Python is
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
>> disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
>>
>> Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in
>>
On 2007-12-13, Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Cerutti a écrit :
>> On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
>>> disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
>>>
>>> Python is compi
Neil Cerutti a écrit :
> On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
>> disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
>>
>> Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in
>> function "compile".
On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
> disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
>
> Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in
> function "compile". It's just not compiled to *ma
Marco Mariani a écrit :
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned, anyone (I mean, anyone pretending to be a
>> programmer) being ignorant enough to ask such a question ranks high in
>> my bozo list. Don't waste time with bozos.
>
>
> Alan Kay said it well enough without using
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> As far as I'm concerned, anyone (I mean, anyone pretending to be a
> programmer) being ignorant enough to ask such a question ranks high in
> my bozo list. Don't waste time with bozos.
Alan Kay said it well enough without using words like "pretending",
"ignorant"
Terry Reedy a écrit :
> "Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
> learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, "Why would you
> write that in a scripting language?"
Then as
Doug Morse a écrit :
top-post corrected
But here's my problem,
most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and learn that they are
written in Python ask questions like, "Why would you write that in a
scripting language?" Whenever I hear a comment like that I can feel
mys
Doug Morse wrote:
> although perhaps not a part of the definition of scripting languages per se,
> one aspect of them is that they are often used to "glue" a wide variety of
> other components together. perl's initial and continued success is in no
> small part to all the wrappers and interfaces i
although perhaps not a part of the definition of scripting languages per se,
one aspect of them is that they are often used to "glue" a wide variety of
other components together. perl's initial and continued success is in no
small part to all the wrappers and interfaces it has to all sorts of othe
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:35:40 -0800, oj wrote:
> On Dec 12, 4:34 am, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But here's my problem,
>> most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and learn that they are
>> written i
On Dec 12, 4:34 am, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
> learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, "Why would you
> write th
"Ron Provost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, "Why would you
write that in a scripting language?" Whenever I hear a comment like that I
The term "scripting language" is a pretty misunderstood one these
days. I hold the opinion that what it is supposed to mean can, today,
apply to any language. C, even, is a scripting language. All any of
our software today is doing is calling out to some other component
and simply acting as
OK, I don't mean to start any sort of war or flaming or anything here but I
really need to discuss this with other afficionados of Python - I know none
other than myself.
I'm a software developer. Where I work, the dominant development language is
Java with some mostly-legacy C/C++ software.
33 matches
Mail list logo
