sturlamolden a écrit :
On 13 Des, 19:16, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I find properties atrocious and unsafe.
What a strange observation from someone wanting to introduce defmacros
and customizable syntax in Python
One cannot
distinguish between a function call
sturlamolden a écrit :
On 12 Des, 17:00, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python has not become what it is, and achieved the success it has,
because a bunch of people really wanted to use Lisp but didn't think
other people could handle it.
The goal of these sorts of discussions should
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Python 2.6 and 3.0 have a more Pythonic way for the problem:
class A(object):
@property
def foo(self):
return self._foo
@foo.setter
def foo(self, value)
self._foo = value
@foo.deletter
def
On Dec 13, 2007 12:04 PM, Patrick Mullen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Python 2.6 and 3.0 have a more Pythonic way for the problem:
class A(object):
@property
def foo(self):
return self._foo
@foo.setter
def foo(self,
Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python 2.6 and 3.0 have a more Pythonic way for the problem:
class A(object):
@property
def foo(self):
return self._foo
@foo.setter
def foo(self, value)
self._foo = value
@foo.deletter
def foo(self)
On 13 Des, 19:16, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't feel that it's especially inconsistent, and I like decorators.
Having to write foo everywhere isn't that nice, but it's only mildly
worse than C# to me - I find the extra block levels really atrocious.
Personally I find
Duncan Booth wrote:
Unfortunately as currently implemented, getter setter and deleter just
update the existing property, so the getter defined in B changes how the
property works in A as well. I think the intention may have been that they
should create a new property each time, but this
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand that criticism. How is that different
from things which are not properties?
foo.baz = 2 # oops, I meant bar
will succeed regardless of whether foo.bar is an attribute or a property.
Unless it's a new style class with __slots__
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:35:24 -0800, sturlamolden wrote:
On 13 Des, 19:16, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't feel that it's especially inconsistent, and I like decorators.
Having to write foo everywhere isn't that nice, but it's only mildly
worse than C# to me - I find the extra
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'm not quite sure I understand that criticism. How is that different
from things which are not properties?
foo.baz = 2 # oops, I meant bar
will succeed regardless of whether foo.bar is an
Aahz wrote:
Unless it's a new style class with __slots__
[]
Naw, I'll skip the rant this time. ;-)
Wuss! I was looking forward to it :)
Tim Delaney
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Dec 12, 2:18 am, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 7:34 am, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure why a new type annotation syntax was needed Python 3:
Because people care about a feature when there is @syntax.
Good point; the inverse is not true though: time
On Dec 12, 9:04 am, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2:18 am, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 7:34 am, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure why a new type annotation syntax was needed Python 3:
Because people care about a feature when
sturlamolden wrote:
On 11 Des, 20:25, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shed Skin effort. Its author writes Am I the only one seeing the potential
of an implicitly statically typed Python-like-language that runs at
practically the same speed as C++?
Don't forget about Pyrex and PyPy's
sturlamolden wrote:
def fibo(n):
while 1:
try:
return fibo.seq[n]
except AttributeError:
fibo.seq = [0, 1, 1]
except IndexError:
fibo.seq.append( fibo.seq[-2] + fibo.seq[-1] )
I really like this formulation. However, its
On Dec 12, 4:09 am, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curiously, whenever property syntax is discussed the
discussion loses track and is dragged away by needless side
discussions. Just look at Stephen Bethards withdrawn PEP 359 [1] in
which he finally muses about replacing the class
On 12 Des, 12:56, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, the 'make' statement.. I liked (and still do) that PEP, I think it
would have an impact comparable to the decorator syntax sugar, if not
more.
I think it is one step closer to Lisp. I believe that it would be
worth considering
On Dec 12, 2007 8:36 AM, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Des, 12:56, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, the 'make' statement.. I liked (and still do) that PEP, I think it
would have an impact comparable to the decorator syntax sugar, if not
more.
I think it is one
On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 06:36:49AM -0800, sturlamolden wrote regarding Re: Is a
real C-Python possible?:
On 12 Des, 12:56, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, the 'make' statement.. I liked (and still do) that PEP, I think it
would have an impact comparable to the decorator syntax
On 12 Des, 17:44, J. Clifford Dyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Programmable syntax is a very powerful concept.
You don't have to use the programmable syntax just because it's there.
But I do realize it would be a misfeature if it is abused.
Two points:
* Programmable syntax would make it easier
On 12 Des, 17:00, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python has not become what it is, and achieved the success it has,
because a bunch of people really wanted to use Lisp but didn't think
other people could handle it.
The goal of these sorts of discussions should be to make Python a
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Given that the Python core team has been mostly silent about JIT
compilation and Armin Rigos work in particular which started 5 years
ago ( Psyco will not be promoted towards Python 3.0 and there is no
indication that anyone but Armin would maintain Psyco ) I wonder about
Kay Schluehr wrote:
class A(object):
foo = property:
def fget(self):
return self._foo
def fset(self, value):
self._foo = value
which was translated as follows:
class A(object):
def thunk():
def fget(self):
return
On Dec 12, 4:09 am, Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I vaguely remember a discussion a few years ago, where someone made
the quite reasonable suggestion of introducing some kind of
thunk_statement:
class A(object):
foo = property:
def fget(self):
return
On Dec 12, 1:12 pm, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
class A(object):
foo = property:
def fget(self):
return self._foo
def fset(self, value):
self._foo = value
which was translated as follows:
class
On Dec 12, 3:36 pm, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Des, 12:56, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, the 'make' statement.. I liked (and still do) that PEP, I think it
would have an impact comparable to the decorator syntax sugar, if not
more.
I think it is one step
On Dec 12, 2007 12:53 PM, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:12 pm, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
class A(object):
foo = property:
def fget(self):
return self._foo
def fset(self, value):
On Dec 12, 2:23 pm, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 12:53 PM, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:12 pm, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
class A(object):
foo = property:
def fget(self):
On Dec 12, 8:23 pm, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 12:53 PM, George Sakkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 1:12 pm, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kay Schluehr wrote:
class A(object):
foo = property:
def fget(self):
On 12 Des, 18:58, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see an indication that anybody but the creator of Psyco does
understand the code base. *g*
Then you haven't been reading the right IRC channel recently. ;-)
Guido has stated his opinion about optimizations more than once. My
sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 Des, 23:34, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://antoniocangiano.com/2007/11/28/holy-shmoly-ruby-19-smokes-pyth
...
The Ruby developers are allowed to be proud. They were able to
optimize some aspects of the implementation to get one
On Dec 11, 3:10 am, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 Des, 23:34, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://antoniocangiano.com/2007/11/28/holy-shmoly-ruby-19-smokes-pyth
...
The Ruby developers are allowed to be proud. They were
On 11 Des, 10:10, Duncan Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@memoize(3)
def fib(n):
if n == 0 or n == 1:
return n
else:
return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)
The thing I would do is:
def fibo(n):
while 1:
try:
return fibo.seq[n]
except AttributeError:
sturlamolden wrote:
On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming.
--C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting
Hoare)
We're ten years into Python, and it's still a naive interpreter.
It's time
sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming.
--C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting
Hoare)
Oh, I was Hoare? Thanks. Anyway, it doesn't change the
On Dec 11, 2007 1:25 PM, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sturlamolden wrote:
On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming.
--C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting
Hoare)
We're ten
On 2007-12-10, sturlamolden wrote:
We have seen several examples that 'dynamic' and 'interpreted'
languages can be quite efficient: There is an implementation of Common
Lisp - CMUCL - that can compete with Fortran in efficiency for
numerical computing. There are also versions of Lisp than can
sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10 Des, 23:54, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or a lack of time and money. Lisp is one of the older programming
languages around, and at a time had BigBucks(tm) invested on it to try
and make it practically usable.
Yes. But strangely
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:25:32 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
sturlamolden wrote:
On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming.
--C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting
Hoare)
We're ten years
John Nagle a écrit :
sturlamolden wrote:
On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming.
--C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting
Hoare)
We're ten years into Python, and it's still a naive
John Nagle schrieb:
sturlamolden wrote:
On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming.
--C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting
Hoare)
We're ten years into Python, and it's still a naive
On 11 Des, 20:25, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shed Skin effort. Its author writes Am I the only one seeing the potential
of an implicitly statically typed Python-like-language that runs at
practically the same speed as C++?
Don't forget about Pyrex and PyPy's RPython.
By the way, we
sturlamolden a écrit :
-snip)
We could include optional static typing in
Python,
Please wait - going to get my gun...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| We could include optional static typing in
| Python, and have an optional static optimizing native compiler for
| selected portions of code.
Python 3 will have optional 'type' annotations, where 'type' includes
abstract
On Dec 12, 4:45 am, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| We could include optional static typing in
| Python, and have an optional static optimizing native compiler for
| selected portions of code.
Python 3 will have
On 12 Des, 04:45, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python 3 will have optional 'type' annotations, where 'type' includes
abstract base classes defined by the interface (methods). So parameters
could be annotated as a Number or Sequence, for instance, which is more
useful often than any
On Dec 12, 7:34 am, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Des, 04:45, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python 3 will have optional 'type' annotations, where 'type' includes
abstract base classes defined by the interface (methods). So parameters
could be annotated as a Number or
Jack a écrit :
I understand that the standard Python distribution is considered
the C-Python. Howerver, the current C-Python is really a combination
of C and Python implementation. There are about 2000 Python files
included in the Windows version of Python distribution. I'm not sure
how much
On Dec 9, 10:43 pm, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://blog.snaplogic.org/?p=55
There's some choice nonsense here, albeit on a different topic:
Coding for wxwidgets, using a QT or GTK bridge, or using TCL/TK is
hardly an optimal solution when writing complex graphical
applications, and Java
On Dec 9, 3:23 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that the standard Python distribution is considered
the C-Python. Howerver, the current C-Python is really a combination
of C and Python implementation. There are
On Dec 9, 1:14 pm, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if it's possible to have a Python that's completely (or at
least for the most part) implemented in C, just like PHP - I think
this is where PHP gets its performance advantage. Or maybe I'm wrong
because the core modules that matter are
On Dec 9, 10:07 pm, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think most Java-Python benchmarks you can find online will indicate
that Java is a 3-10 times faster. A few here:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2002-January/125789.html
http://blog.snaplogic.org/?p=55
There are lies, damn
Jack a écrit :
I'm not sure
how much of the C-Python is implemented in C but I think the more
modules implemented in C, the better performance and lower memory
footprint it will get.
Prove it. ;-)
I guess this is subjective :)
If yes, benchmarks are not an argument. Else, you'll have hard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
(snip)
I'd like to provide some evidence that Python is *faster* than Java.
Then benchmark the time taken for the interpreter (oops, sorry: VM) to
start !-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 9 Des, 22:14, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that the standard Python distribution is considered
the C-Python. Howerver, the current C-Python is really a combination
of C and Python implementation. There are about 2000 Python files
included in the Windows version of Python
On 9 Des, 23:34, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless it is just one algorithm that beats Python in an area that
is well known to be slow. Python's numbers are several factors slower
than C code because the overhead of the dynamic language throws lots of
data out of the
Jack a écrit :
Aahz a écrit
Could you provide some evidence that Python is slower than Java or PHP?
I think most Java-Python benchmarks you can find online will indicate
that Java is a 3-10 times faster. A few here:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2002-January/125789.html
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Donald Knuth, one of the fathers of modern computer science, is famous
for stating that premature optimization is the root of all evil in
computer science.
From my .sig database:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
sturlamolden a écrit :
On 9 Des, 23:34, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless it is just one algorithm that beats Python in an area that
is well known to be slow. Python's numbers are several factors slower
than C code because the overhead of the dynamic language throws lots
On 10 Des, 23:54, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or a lack of time and money. Lisp is one of the older programming
languages around, and at a time had BigBucks(tm) invested on it to try
and make it practically usable.
Yes. But strangely enough, the two Lisp implementations that
On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote:
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming.
--C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting
Hoare)
Oh, I was Hoare? Thanks. Anyway, it doesn't change the argument that
optimizing in wrong places is a
On 9 Des, 23:34, Christian Heimes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://antoniocangiano.com/2007/11/28/holy-shmoly-ruby-19-smokes-pyth...
The Ruby developers are allowed to be proud. They were able to optimize
some aspects of the implementation to get one algorithm about 14 times
faster. That's
We obviously need more effort to make Python more efficient for CPU
bound tasks. Particularly JIT compilation like Java, compilation like
Lisp or data specialization like Psyco.
Given that the Python core team has been mostly silent about JIT
compilation and Armin Rigos work in particular
I understand that the standard Python distribution is considered
the C-Python. Howerver, the current C-Python is really a combination
of C and Python implementation. There are about 2000 Python files
included in the Windows version of Python distribution. I'm not sure
how much of the C-Python is
Jack schrieb:
I understand that the standard Python distribution is considered
the C-Python. Howerver, the current C-Python is really a combination
of C and Python implementation. There are about 2000 Python files
included in the Windows version of Python distribution. I'm not sure
how much
I'm not sure
how much of the C-Python is implemented in C but I think the more
modules implemented in C, the better performance and lower memory
footprint it will get.
Prove it. ;-)
I guess this is subjective :) - that's what I felt in my experience
with web applications developed in Python
Jack wrote:
I wonder if it's possible to have a Python that's completely (or at
least for the most part) implemented in C, just like PHP - I think
this is where PHP gets its performance advantage. Or maybe I'm wrong
PHP is slower than Python.
--
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that the standard Python distribution is considered
the C-Python. Howerver, the current C-Python is really a combination
of C and Python implementation. There are about 2000 Python files
included in the Windows version of
That first article is five years old... I wouldn't give too much
weight to it.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Jack wrote:
I guess this is subjective :) - that's what I felt in my experience
with web applications developed in Python and PHP. I wasn't able to
find a direct comparison online.
Please compare the number of serious bugs and vulnerabilities in PHP and
Python.
I understand. Python modules
Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|I understand that the standard Python distribution is considered
| the C-Python. Howerver, the current C-Python is really a combination
| of C and Python implementation. There are about 2000 Python files
| included in the Windows
I think most Java-Python benchmarks you can find online will indicate
that Java is a 3-10 times faster. A few here:
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2002-January/125789.html
http://blog.snaplogic.org/?p=55
There are lies, damn lies and benchmarks. :)
Pure Python code is not
On Dec 9, 6:07 pm, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plus, Psyco is not the
main stream and has stopped development.
scooby-whruu??
What makes you think it has stopped development? I just swung by the
SF project page, and its most recent news post was just 2 months ago.
Psyco may not be in the
Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| The second articple does have a column for Psyco. It helps in some areas
| but still not good enough to stand up against Java. Plus, Psyco is not
the
| main stream and has stopped development.
It further development is
On Dec 9, 10:04 pm, Paul McGuire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 9, 6:07 pm, Jack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plus, Psyco is not the
main stream and has stopped development.
scooby-whruu??
What makes you think it has stopped development? I just swung by the
SF project page, and its most
on 12/10/2007 05:14 AM Jack wrote :
I wonder if it's possible to have a Python that's completely (or at
least for the most part) implemented in C, just like PHP - I think
this is where PHP gets its performance advantage. Or maybe I'm wrong
because the core modules that matter are already in
76 matches
Mail list logo
