On 26/10/2013 20:24, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Paul Rubin said:
"FYI, there is real though imprecise garbage collection for C. Web
search for "Boehm garbage collection" should find more info"
Very interesting. This wasn't around the last time I launched a C/C++ project
from scratch. Thanks for th
Paul Rubin said:
"FYI, there is real though imprecise garbage collection for C. Web
search for "Boehm garbage collection" should find more info"
Very interesting. This wasn't around the last time I launched a C/C++ project
from scratch. Thanks for the tip.
I have to admit, off the top of my he
Steven said -
"In a very real sense, Python is "just" a convenience wrapper around a
bunch of C functions to provide OOP idioms, garbage collection, dynamic
typing, runtime introspection, exceptions, and similar. "
I can't really disagree with you in a factual sense, but somehow it doesn't
reall
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> C does not natively provide garbage collection, or exceptions, or many
> other features. But that doesn't make it *impossible* to use these
> features in C, it just makes them *inconvenient and difficult*. To get
> the advantage of such fea
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 01:12:12 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>
>> Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
>> cannot do *at all* in C, C+
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:05:09 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 25/10/2013 07:14, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Use one of the coding schemes endorsed by Unicode.
>
> As I personally know nothing about unicode for the unenlightened such as
> myself please explain this statement with respect to t
On 25/10/2013 07:14, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip all the double spaced crap - please read, digest and action this
https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython]
Use one of the coding schemes endorsed by Unicode.
As I personally know nothing about unicode for the unenlightened such a
On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
> Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
> cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java?
Please. No exceptions is huge. No garbage collecti
Le mardi 15 octobre 2013 23:00:29 UTC+2, Mark Lawrence a écrit :
> On 15/10/2013 21:11, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Le lundi 14 octobre 2013 21:18:59 UTC+2, John Nagle a écrit :
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [...]
>
> >>
>
> >> No, Python went through the usual design screwups. Loo
On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
> Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
> cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java?
Ummm... hmmm let me try here...
string = 'Py
Gregory Ewing writes:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
>>
>>>The actual syntax would be
>>>
>>> [object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
>>
>> I don't get how to map that to Python's syntax.
>
> It's roughly morally equiv
On 2013-10-23, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 10/23/13 4:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Smith writes:
>>>
You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
>> [...]
>>> The actual syntax would be
>>>
>>>[object method: arg1
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
The actual syntax would be
[object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
I don't get how to map that to Python's syntax.
It's roughly morally equivalent to
object.method(arg1, withSomethi
On 10/23/13 4:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
Roy Smith writes:
You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
[...]
The actual syntax would be
[object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
I don't get how to
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
> Roy Smith writes:
>
>> You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
[...]
> The actual syntax would be
>
> [object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
I don't get how to map that to Python's syntax.
object.
Steven wrote:
> The world is much bigger than just the C family of languages.
And even within that space, the original authors of C left plenty of
room for debate/improvement. In at least two dimensions (object
oriented programming, and memory management), various C descendants
have tried multipl
rusi said :
"You continue to not attribute quotes. "
Sorry, I'll try to be better about this all-important aspect of sharing
knowledge.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Roy Smith writes:
> You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
>
> [object method arg1 withSomething arg2 withSomethingElse arg3]
>
> I'm sure I got that slightly wrong. I don't do Objective C, and my eyes
> glaze over every time I have to read it.
The actual syntax would be
[object
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:19 PM, rusi wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
> Guess-who said:
>
>> "but it's "ugly", by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
>> easily maintained."
>>
>> OK, I see the problem. What you call "ugly" is real
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Guess-who said:
> "but it's "ugly", by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
> easily maintained."
>
> OK, I see the problem. What you call "ugly" is really just objectively bad.
You continue to not attribute
"but it's "ugly", by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
easily maintained."
OK, I see the problem. What you call "ugly" is really just objectively bad.
Ugliness and beauty are subjective qualities that can't really be debated on a
deep level. Like I mentioned in other post, I f
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate
> trolling.
>
> "One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
> useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or "ugly" in some
> langu
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
> useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or "ugly" in some
> languages, so they create new languages with different syntax to make
> those useful patte
On Monday, October 21, 2013 2:13:52 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate trolling.
The same could be said for this below… but…
>
> "One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
> useful programming idio
Are you suggesting Advertising is the Best language there is?
# After many years, I agree not, but what to may...
def If I do Something do, you not react():
IsMySyntaxNotCorrect()
CanINotCorrectMyGrammaticalMistakesAndSeekAcceptance():
# The most arguable language
Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate trolling.
"One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or "ugly" in some
languages, so they create new languages with different syntax to make
tho
Python is the Best!
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 23:44:27 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> This is just one language feature. I could go on and on. The idea that
> the differences between these languages is just syntactic sugar and
> aesthetics is so profoundly misguided that I can only assume that this
> misconception was prop
On 21/10/2013 08:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
"I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context."
Because it's written
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> "I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
>> then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context."
>
>
> Because it's written in (say) C++ in an object orientat
On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
"I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context."
Because it's written in (say) C++ in an object orientated style, so by
rewriting it using assembler in a procedural styl
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 21/10/2013 07:44, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>> [ a whole lot of stuff ]
>
> As my crystal ball is once again being mended, would you please be kind
> enough to tell all of us who and exactly what you're replying to.
Mine is in service at the
On 21/10/2013 07:44, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I've written a fair bit of code in pure C, C++, C#, Java and now getting there
in Python.
The difference between C# and Java is fairly minor.
The others have large and significant differences between them. Garbage
collectors or not is huge. Exception
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Peter Cacioppi
wrote:
> I've written a fair bit of code in pure C, C++, C#, Java and now getting
> there in Python.
>
> The difference between C# and Java is fairly minor.
>
> The others have large and significant differences between them. Garbage
> collectors or
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
> useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or "ugly" in some
> languages, so they create new languages with different syntax to make
> those useful patter
I've written a fair bit of code in pure C, C++, C#, Java and now getting there
in Python.
The difference between C# and Java is fairly minor.
The others have large and significant differences between them. Garbage
collectors or not is huge. Exceptions or not is huge. Dynamic or static typing
On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:51:12 AM UTC+5:30, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > According to
> > some, Java, which has many low-level machine primitive types, is an
> > object-oriented language, while Python, which has no machine primitives
> > and where every v
In article <52648c54$0$29981$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> According to
> some, Java, which has many low-level machine primitive types, is an
> object-oriented language, while Python, which has no machine primitives
> and where every value is an object, is not.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:26:02 -0700, rusi wrote:
> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:02:24 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>>
>> I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of
>> object-oriented programming.
>
> Yes that is what is asserted by
> http://www-public.int-evry.f
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:49:02 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
>> I don't know if I want to step into the flames here,
>
> Go on, be bold! You learn a lot by making bold claims and having them
> shot down.
Yes, it's a very effective technique
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:49:02 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> I don't know if I want to step into the flames here,
Go on, be bold! You learn a lot by making bold claims and having them
shot down. Or at least, I did. Now I know everything, so I can afford to
be humble.
*wink*
> but my
> unders
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM, rusi wrote:
> 3 examples were given (1) python's C implementation (2) OS/2 (3) Linux kernel
> About 2 I dont know anything though I believe gdk and gobject are more
> contemporary examples.
Good point, I believe you're right there. I haven't worked with
GTK/GDK i
On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:02:24 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
> I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of
> object-oriented programming.
Yes that is what is asserted by
http://www-public.int-evry.fr/~gibson/Teaching/CSC7322/ReadingMaterial/Wegner87.pdf
--
> give me practicality beats purity any day of the week :)
Without some notion of theory you will end up with php instead of python (see
how I looped the thread back around on track ... you're welcome).
If you think php is no worse than python for building reliable, readable code
bases than go
On 18/10/2013 21:32, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I think the author goes a little too far to claim that "strong"
"weak" are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems
I can live with that, actually.
The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs.
dynamic typing, p
> I think the author goes a little too far to claim that "strong"
> "weak" are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems
I can live with that, actually.
The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs.
dynamic typing, procedural vs. functional, no objects vs. o
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I don't know about TCL, but in Hypertalk, when I said everything is a
> string, I meant it. If you want a list of strings, you create one big
> string using some delimiter (usually spaces, commas or newlines).
Fair enough. As a system, tha
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:12:36 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> One thing he missed is that there are untyped languages where
>> everything is the same type. If everything is the same type, that's
>> equivalent to there being no types at al
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> One thing he missed is that there are untyped languages where everything
> is the same type. If everything is the same type, that's equivalent to
> there being no types at all. Examples include TCL and Hypertalk, where
> everything are stri
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:08:30 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>> It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
>>> the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that
>>> point, I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit
>>> lexer.
>>
>> Why st
On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:38:30 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> >> It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
> >> the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point,
> >> I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
> >
> >
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:14:29 PM UTC+5:30, MRAB wrote:
> On 17/10/2013 18:32, rusi wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> >> Yes, well clearly we are not "having the same thoughts", yet the
> >> purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down su
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:49:02 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Even Python, which isn't strongly typed
I see that in a later message you have stepped away from that
misconception, but I think it is well worth reading this essay:
https://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/
pre
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:07 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> --> int="five"
> --> [int(i) for i in ["1","2","3"]]
>
> TypeError: str is not callable
>
> Now how are you going to get the original int type back?
Trivially easy:
py> int
py> int = "five" # Oops!
py> int(42.5
>> It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
>> the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point,
>> I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
>
> Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his
>
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:24:58 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Anyway, what I sought to prove was that polymorphic object oriented code
> can be written in C or any other language.
The proof of this is that any Turing-complete language can simulate any
other language. Obviously the *difficulty* can
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
> On 10/17/2013 01:57 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>
>>
>> Read and listen more. Write and say less.
>
>
> Mark Janssen has no interest in learning. From a thread long-ago:
>
> Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>> Ethan Furman wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark Janssen w
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:49:52 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
> It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
> the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point,
> I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
Why stop there? If yo
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article ,
> Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
>> OTOH, I've seen object-based C development projects (I.e. where you could
>> tell what function was being called at compile time) that are quite readable.
>
> If you can tell what function will be call
In article ,
Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> OTOH, I've seen object-based C development projects (I.e. where you could
> tell what function was being called at compile time) that are quite readable.
If you can tell what function will be called by looking at the code,
it's not object oriented enough
On 10/17/2013 01:57 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
Read and listen more. Write and say less.
Mark Janssen has no interest in learning. From a thread long-ago:
Mark Janssen wrote:
Ethan Furman wrote:
Mark Janssen wrote:
Really?
--> int="five"
--> [int(i) for i in ["1","2","3"]]
TypeError:
On 10/17/13 3:49 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM, rusi wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not "having the same thoughts", yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
and no
My bad, Python is dynamically typed, but also strongly typed.
But I still say it has language features that specifically support
polymorphism, which is why true OO can be developed in Python in a readable way.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 17/10/2013 07:49, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I don't know if I want to step into the flames here,
Even Python, which isn't strongly typed
Yeah right.
--
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Most poems rhyme,
But this one doesn't.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-li
On 10/17/2013 2:49 AM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Even Python, which isn't strongly typed,
Python objects have a definite type/class. It is fixed for instances of
builtins. If that is not 'strong', the word has no meaning.
manages polymorphism by allowing the self argument to a sub-class of t
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM, rusi wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
>> Yes, well clearly we are not "having the same thoughts", yet the
>> purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
>> and not have these sloppy understandings
> The first C++ compilers were just preprocessors that translated into
> pure C code ...
I agree with this.
> the C code was reasonably clear, not really convoluted, so you would have
> been able to write it yourself.
I disagree with this. My sense of C is that IF you are relying on preproces
On 17/10/2013 18:32, rusi wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not "having the same thoughts", yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
and not have these sloppy understandings everywhere. You dig?
On 17/10/2013 18:32, rusi wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not "having the same thoughts", yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such
terminology and not have these sloppy understandings everywhere.
You dig?
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> Yes, well clearly we are not "having the same thoughts", yet the
> purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
> and not have these sloppy understandings everywhere. You dig?
Heh Mark I am really sorry.
Peter Cacioppi writes:
>> What you've said here is that "without polymorphism, you can't have
>> polymorphism". :)
>
> Respectfully, no. I refer to the distinction between object based and object
> oriented programming. Wikipedia's entry is consistent with my understanding
> (not to argue by w
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
> the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that
> point, I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit
> lexer.
Even when computers we
On 17/10/2013 15:49, Mark Janssen wrote:
Prior to that [the '70s] you have punch cards where there's no meaningful
definition of "parsing" because there are no tokens.
I have no idea what you mean by this. [...]
You seem drawn to sweeping statements about the current state and history of
com
>Prior to that [the '70s] you have punch cards where there's no meaningful
> definition of "parsing" because there are no tokens.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by this. [...]
> You seem drawn to sweeping statements about the current state and history of
> computer science, but then make clai
On 2013-10-17, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
>
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
> ago. Your input is rubbish.
Are you under the misa
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:09:59 PM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote:
> On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:19:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
>
> > Object oriented programming takes things further, most significantly by
> introducing the idea that the object reference you are referencing might be a
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:19:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
> Object oriented programming takes things further, most significantly by
> introducing the idea that the object reference you are referencing might be a
> run time dependent sub-class. Even Python, which isn't strongly typ
rusi writes:
> However - to speak a little for Mark's perspective (from a hopefully
> more educated background): There's a fine line between laboriously
> simulating a feature and properly supporting it:
>
> - C has arbitrary precision arithmetic -- use gmp library
> - C is a functional language -
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Peter Cacioppi
wrote:
> Respectfully, no. I refer to the distinction between object based and object
> oriented programming. Wikipedia's entry is consistent with my understanding
> (not to argue by wiki-authority, but the terminology here isn't my personal
> inv
Am 17.10.13 09:23, schrieb Peter Cacioppi:
Do you have a clean little example of polymorphism being
mocked in a reasonable way with pure C? There are many nice
object-based C projects floating around, but real polymorphism? I
think you can't do it without some bizarre work-arounds, but I'd be
hap
> What you've said here is that "without polymorphism, you can't have
> polymorphism". :)
Respectfully, no. I refer to the distinction between object based and object
oriented programming. Wikipedia's entry is consistent with my understanding
(not to argue by wiki-authority, but the terminolog
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Peter Cacioppi
wrote:
> I don't know if I want to step into the flames here, but my understanding has
> always been that in the absence of polymorphism the best you can do is
> "object based" programming instead of "object oriented" programming.
>
> Object orient
On 17/10/2013 01:53, Mark Janssen wrote:
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
You must be one of the
I don't know if I want to step into the flames here, but my understanding has
always been that in the absence of polymorphism the best you can do is "object
based" programming instead of "object oriented" programming.
Object based programming is a powerful step forward. The insight that by
asso
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:53:22 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
>
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years ago.
> Your input is rubbish.
On 10/16/13 8:53 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
The mention of punched ca
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:17:57 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 10/16/13 8:13 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
> > Who uses "object abstraction" in C? No one. That's why C++ was
> > invented.
Examples from
1. Linux Kernel
2. Python
3. OS/2
> > But, here it is significant that
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
>> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
>> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
>
> Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
> ago. Your input is rubbish.
I c
> And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
> ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/l
On 10/16/13 8:13 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Who uses "object abstraction" in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
If not, Linux, how about Python?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
object oriented and most
On 17/10/2013 3:57 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Who uses "object abstraction" in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he
was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by
examining his wives' mouths." -
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
> But, here it is significant that the user /consumer (i.e. *at the
> workstation* mind you) is *making* the "object" because thier visual
> system turns it into one. Otherwise, at the C-level, I'm guessing
> it's normal C code without objects
Who uses "object abstraction" in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
>>>
>> If not, Linux, how about Python?
>>
>> http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
>
> Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
> object oriented and mostly C. It's done with S
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>>> Who uses "object abstraction" in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
>>
>> I wonder if you've heard of something called linux?
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/
>
> If not, Linux, how about Python?
>
> http://hg.python.org/cpython/f
>> Who uses "object abstraction" in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
>
> I wonder if you've heard of something called linux?
> http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/
If not, Linux, how about Python?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
Skip
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman
On 2013-10-16, Mark Janssen wrote:
Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
things in our minds.
>>>
>>> That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
>>> "typedef"s that make it a thing for the computer.
>>
>> Speaking as a C programmer, no. W
On 2013-10-16, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> On 2013-10-15, Mark Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, well 40 years ago they didn't have parsers.
>>
>> That seems an odd thing to say. People were assembling and compiling
>> computer programs long before
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:27:03 PM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
> >>> Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
> >>> things in our minds.
> >>
> >> That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
> >> "typedef"s that make it a thing for the computer.
> >
>>> Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
>>> things in our minds.
>>
>> That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
>> "typedef"s that make it a thing for the computer.
>
> Speaking as a C programmer, no. We have explicit typedefs to create new
> la
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2013-10-15, Mark Janssen wrote:
>
>> Yeah, well 40 years ago they didn't have parsers.
>
> That seems an odd thing to say. People were assembling and compiling
> computer programs long before 1973.
I'm using the word "parser" in the sens
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
