In article ,
Chris Angelico wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses
>> over a million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and
>> therefore there is a lot of room for efficiency gains without sac
in 723903 20140617 121638 alister wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:34:13 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>>
>> Partly that. But also, people want to know how long that will *really*
>> last. For instance, 10 hours of battery life... doing what? Can I really
>> hop on a plane for ten hours and write c
On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:34:13 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> Partly that. But also, people want to know how long that will *really*
> last. For instance, 10 hours of battery life... doing what? Can I really
> hop on a plane for ten hours and write code the whole way without
> external power? Or
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
>> A few years ago jumbo sized but cheapish CULV laptops suddenly had 10
>> hours plus battery but did anyone notice or care?
>
>
> I think people do care, it's just that going from
> something like 6 hours to 10 hours is not a big
> enough cha
Anssi Saari wrote:
That was before 90 nm when leakage current started dominating over
switching current.
Well, if you don't care about speed, you probably don't
need to make it that small. There's plenty of time for
signals to propagate, so you can afford to spread the
circuitry out more.
The
Gregory Ewing writes:
> Current draw of CMOS circuitry is pretty much zero when
> nothing is changing, so if you didn't care how slow it ran,
> you probably could run a server off a watch battery today.
That was before 90 nm when leakage current started dominating over
switching current. But has
Johannes Bauer :
> def make_street_address_map(info_list):
> return { info.get_street_address(): info.get_zip_code()
>for info in info_list }
Live and learn. Have been an the lookout for dict comprehensions, but
didn't notice they were already included.
Marko
--
https://mai
On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 10:53:13 PM UTC+8, Mark H. Harris wrote:
> On 6/4/14 9:24 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote:
>
> > Surely your local colleagues realize that Python has been around for
>
> > 20-odd years now, that indentation-based block structure has been
>
> > there since Day One, and that it
On 05.06.2014 23:53, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> or:
>
>def make_street_address_map(info_list):
>return dict((info.get_street_address(), info.get_zip_code())
>for info in info_list)
>
or, what I think is even clearer than your last one:
def make_street_address_map(i
On 07.06.2014 11:54, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> No. Cost is the issue (development, maintenance, operation,
> liability...). Want an example? Here is one:
>
> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/14/06/06/1443218/gm-names-and-fires-engineers-involved-in-faulty-ignition-switch
Yeah this is totally believ
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:51:49 +0100, Joshua Landau wrote:
> On 12 June 2014 03:08, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> We know *much more* about generating energy from E = mc^2 than we know
>> about optimally flipping bits: our nuclear reactions convert something
>> of the order of 0.1% of their fuel to e
On 12 June 2014 03:08, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> We know *much more* about generating energy from E = mc^2 than we know
> about optimally flipping bits: our nuclear reactions convert something of
> the order of 0.1% of their fuel to energy, that is, to get a certain
> yield, we "merely" have to sup
In article <5399019e$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:48:36 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > In article <53984cd2$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, technically water-cooled engines ar
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 03:18:00 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
[...]
>> Take three numbers, speeds in this case, s1, s2 and c, with c a strict
>> upper-bound. We can take:
>>
>> s1 < s2 < c
>>
>> without loss of generality. So in this case, w
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:48:00 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> > Take three numbers, speeds in this case, s1, s2 and c, with c a strict
> > upper-bound. We can take:
> > s1 < s2 < c
> > without loss of generality. So in this case, we say
On Thursday 12 June 2014 13:18:00 Chris Angelico did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano
>
> > I'm saying that, whatever the practical engineering limits turn out
> > to be, we're unlikely to be close to them, and therefore there are
> > very likely to be m
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Chris made the argument that *the laws of physics* put limits on what we
> can attain, which is fair enough, but then made the poor example of speed
> limits on roads falling short of the speed of light. Yes, speed limits on
> roads fall co
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 05:54:47 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:36:50 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[...]
>> > The laws of physics tend to put
>> > boundaries that are ridiculously far from where we actually work - I
>> > think most roads have speed limits that run a fa
I am bewildered by this argument...
[Heck Ive recently learnt that using ellipses is an easy way to
produce literature... So there...]
On Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:36:50 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> It is my contention that, had Intel and AMD spent the last few decades
> optimizing fo
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It is my contention that, had Intel and AMD spent the last few decades
optimizing for power consumption rather than speed, we probably could run
a server off, well, perhaps not a watch battery,
Current draw of CMOS circuitry is pretty much zero when
nothing is changing,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:06:50 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:16:08 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses over a
>>> million times more energy than the t
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 12:16:08 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses over a
>> million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and therefore
>> there is a lot of room for effi
On Wednesday 11 June 2014 22:11:53 Gregory Ewing did opine
And Gene did reply:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Automotive cooling fluid in modern sealed radiators is typically a
> > mixture of 50% anti-freeze and 50% water.
>
> Sometimes it's even more than 50%, at which point
> you really have an an
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I'm just pointing out that our computational technology uses
> over a million times more energy than the theoretical minimum, and
> therefore there is a lot of room for efficiency gains without sacrificing
> computer power. I never imagine
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Automotive cooling fluid in modern sealed radiators is typically a
mixture of 50% anti-freeze and 50% water.
Sometimes it's even more than 50%, at which point
you really have an antifreeze-cooled engine. :-)
--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:28:43 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Not the point. There's a minimum amount of energy required to flip a
>> bit. Everything beyond that is, in a sense, just wasted. You mentioned
>> this yourself in your previous post. It's a *really* tiny amount of
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:48:36 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <53984cd2$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
>> Yes, technically water-cooled engines are cooled by air too. The engine
>> heats a coolant (despite the name, usually not water these days) whic
On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 1:11:12 PM UTC+5:30, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately.
> > There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon,
> > and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon.
> With
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:41:12 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately.
>> There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the
>> gallon, and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon.
>
> With a car, the eng
In article <53984cd2$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Yes, technically water-cooled engines are cooled by air too. The engine
> heats a coolant (despite the name, usually not water these days) which
> then heats the air.
Not water??? I'm not aware of any
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:50:20 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>> So, let me get this straight. A CPU has to have a fan, but a car engine
>> doesn't, because the car's moving at a hundred kays an hour. I have a
>> suspicion the CPU fan moves air a bit slower than that.
I'm not s
Chris Angelico wrote:
So, let me get this straight. A CPU has to have a fan, but a car
engine doesn't, because the car's moving at a hundred kays an hour. I
have a suspicion the CPU fan moves air a bit slower than that.
If the car were *always* moving at 100km/h, it probably
wouldn't need a fan
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Everything *eventually* gets converted to heat, but not immediately.
There's a big difference between a car that gets 100 miles to the gallon,
and one that gets 1 mile to the gallon.
With a car, the engine converts some of its energy to
kinetic energy, which is subsequen
Rustom Mody wrote:
JFTR: Information processing and (physics) energy are about as convertible
as say: "Is a kilogram smaller/greater than a mile?"
Actually, that's not true. There is a fundamental
thermodynamic limit on the minimum energy needed to
flip a bit from one state to the other, so in
On 6/06/2014 9:11 PM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
The nice thing with optional type annotations and an hypothetical Python
compiler would be that you could, e.g., continue using the interpreter
during development and then compile for production use.
s/annotations/decorators/ and you effectively have
Michael Torrie :
> We used to tell people that computers make very efficient space
> heaters. Because in fact they do.
And that's no joke. Our home in Finland is heated with electric
radiators. They are on 8-9 months a year. During those months, the use
of all electrical appliances is free (apart
Gene Heskett :
> Looking at the whole system, about the only energy input that is not
> converted to heat, would be the milliwatt or 3 of sound from the speaker
> when it beeps at you, and the additional energy to spin the fans.
That all becomes heat as well.
The dust particles that stick to t
On 06/08/2014 10:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> A typical desktop computer uses less than 500 watts for *everything*
> except the screen. Hard drives. DVD burner. Keyboard, mouse, USB devices,
> network card, sound card, graphics card, etc. (Actually, 350W is more
> typical.)
>
> Moore's Law o
On Monday 09 June 2014 02:32:33 Rustom Mody did opine
And Gene did reply:
> On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:50:38 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > >> CPU technology
In article <53953616$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Moore's Law observes that processing power has doubled about every two
> years. Over the last decade, processing power has increased by a factor
> of 32. If *efficiency* had increased at the same rate, t
On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:57:26 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle
Hey thanks for that!
Always thought something like this should exist but did not know what/where/how!
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:32:33 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> > On Monday
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:32:33 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:50:38 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> >> CPU technology is the triump
On Monday, June 9, 2014 9:50:38 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
>
> > On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> CPU technology is the triumph of brute force over finesse.
> >
> > If you are arguing that
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> The fact that CPUs need anything more than a passive heat sink is
> *exactly* the problem. A car engine has to move anything up to a tonne of
> steel around at 100kph or more, and depending on the design, they can get
> away with air-coolin
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:24:52 -0700, Rustom Mody wrote:
> On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> The fact that CPUs need anything more than a passive heat sink is
>> *exactly* the problem. A car engine has to move anything up to a tonne
>> of steel around at 100kph
On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:16:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > wrote:
> The fact that CPUs need anything more than a passive heat sink is
> *exactly* the problem. A car engine has to move anything up to a tonne of
> steel around
On Monday, June 9, 2014 5:04:05 AM UTC+5:30, Sturla Molden wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller.
> >>> Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;)
> >>> Leshrak: heh, yeah
> >>> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell
> >>> Kurdt: Especially when it's
On Monday, June 9, 2014 7:14:24 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:16:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Chris Angelico wrote:
> >>> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller. Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD
> >>> without a fan? ;) Leshrak: heh, yeah
> >>> Leshrak
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:16:24 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Sturla Molden
> wrote:
>> Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller. Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD
>>> without a fan? ;) Leshrak: heh, yeah
>>> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pre
Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller.
>>> Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;)
>>> Leshrak: heh, yeah
>>> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell
>>> Kurdt: Especially when it's overclocked. It goes FT in under two
>>> seconds.
>>>
>>> I think that
On 06/08/2014 06:14 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 08 June 2014 12:09:41 Roy Smith did opine
And Gene did reply:
In article ,
Gene Heskett wrote:
You may want to reconsider that statement after the first fan failure
in your mini. We've had quite a few Mac's in the tv station, as
video
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller.
>> Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;)
>> Leshrak: heh, yeah
>> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell
>> Kurdt: Especially when it's overclocked. It goes FZZ
Chris Angelico wrote:
> Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller.
> Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;)
> Leshrak: heh, yeah
> Leshrak: actually. it's not a pretty smell
> Kurdt: Especially when it's overclocked. It goes FT in under two seconds.
>
> I think that's about right.
On
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I have lost several nvidia video cards over the years from fan
> failures.
>From a discussion on one of Threshold RPG's out-of-character channels:
Kurdt: I wouldn't disturb the fan controller.
Kurdt: Ever seen an AMD without a fan? ;)
Leshrak
On Sunday 08 June 2014 12:09:41 Roy Smith did opine
And Gene did reply:
> In article ,
>
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > You may want to reconsider that statement after the first fan failure
> > in your mini. We've had quite a few Mac's in the tv station, as
> > video servers, graphics composers, etc
In article ,
Gene Heskett wrote:
> You may want to reconsider that statement after the first fan failure in
> your mini. We've had quite a few Mac's in the tv station, as video
> servers, graphics composers, etc. The airflow for cooling in them is
> controlled by baffles to get the maximum
On Sunday 08 June 2014 10:51:24 Roy Smith did opine
And Gene did reply:
> In article <5393dd6a$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
>
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:09:37 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> > > We've also got machines that are so fast, it's not longer critical
In article <5393dd6a$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:09:37 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > We've also got machines that are so fast, it's not longer critical that
> > we squeeze out every last iota of performance. Oh, but wait, now we'
On 2014-06-07 17:18, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Roy Smith :
The original MacOS was written in Pascal (both applications and
kernel). Being able to touch memory locations or registers requires no
more than a few short glue routines written in assembler.
Pascal is essentially equivalent to C, except
Roy Smith :
> The original MacOS was written in Pascal (both applications and
> kernel). Being able to touch memory locations or registers requires no
> more than a few short glue routines written in assembler.
Pascal is essentially equivalent to C, except Pascal has a cleaner
syntax. I like the
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:09:37 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> We've also got machines that are so fast, it's not longer critical that
> we squeeze out every last iota of performance. Oh, but wait, now we're
> trying to do absurd things like play full-motion video games on phones,
> where efficiency equa
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Not "standard" Pascal... It had pointer types, but no means to "stuff"
an integer into the pointer variable in order to dereference it as a memory
address...
Although most implementations would let you get the same
effect by abusing variant records (the equivale
Michael Torrie wrote:
Technically C doesn't either, except via subroutines in libc, though C
does have pointers which would be used to access memory.
The Pascal that Apple used had a way of casting an
int to a pointer, so you could do all the tricks
you can do with pointers in C.
--
Greg
--
ht
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:09 AM, Roy Smith wrote:
> We've also got machines that are so fast, it's not longer critical that
> we squeeze out every last iota of performance. Oh, but wait, now we're
> trying to do absurd things like play full-motion video games on phones,
> where efficiency equates
In article <5393a264$0$29988$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:11:27 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > And, why do you need a library routine to touch a memory location, when
> > you can just dereference an integer? :-)
>
> And in one sentence we
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 14:11:27 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:
> And, why do you need a library routine to touch a memory location, when
> you can just dereference an integer? :-)
And in one sentence we have an explanation for 90% of security
vulnerabilities before PHP and SQL injection attacks...
C is n
On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 11:13:42 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> About a decade later, said manager retired and confessed that the choice
> of Pascal was a mistake
There's Pascal and there's Pascal. Standard Pascal, I admit, is woefully
unsuitable for real world work. But Pascal with suitable exte
In article ,
Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 06/07/2014 12:11 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> > Several language constructs in C are there specifically to diddle bits
> > in hardware. Bit fields were in the earliest implementations of the
> > language to allow you to address individual bit control and stat
On 06/07/2014 12:11 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> Several language constructs in C are there specifically to diddle bits
> in hardware. Bit fields were in the earliest implementations of the
> language to allow you to address individual bit control and status bits
> in memory-mapped device controllers
In article ,
Michael Torrie wrote:
> Technically C doesn't [have features to support hitting the hardware]
> either, except via subroutines in libc, though C does have pointers
> which would be used to access memory.
Several language constructs in C are there specifically to diddle bits
in h
On 06/07/2014 09:23 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2014 04:57:19 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> declaimed the following:
>
>>
>> Swift is intended as a new generation *systems language*. The old
>> generation of systems languages are things like C, Objective-C, C#, C++,
>> Java, Pascal, Algol
In article ,
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2014 04:57:19 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> declaimed the following:
>
> >
> >Swift is intended as a new generation *systems language*. The old
> >generation of systems languages are things like C, Objective-C, C#, C++,
> >Java, Pascal, Algol, and s
In article ,
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2014 08:52:36 -0400, Roy Smith declaimed the
> following:
>
>
> >You are lucky indeed. Trust me, in big companies, technical decisions
> >are often made by people who are not using the technology.
>
> Or influenced by someone fam
In article <87zjhpm8q7@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>,
Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> Sturla Molden writes:
>
> > Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> >> Sturla Molden writes:
> >>
> >>> Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> >>>
> Many of these students suggest Python as the
> development language (they learned i
Mark Lawrence writes:
> On 07/06/2014 09:20, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>> Sturla Molden writes:
>> Many of these students suggest Python as the
>> development language (they learned it and liked it), and the suggestion
>> is (almost) always rejected, in favor of Java or C# or C/C++.
>>
On 07/06/2014 09:20, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
Sturla Molden writes:
Alain Ketterlin wrote:
Sturla Molden writes:
Alain Ketterlin wrote:
Many of these students suggest Python as the
development language (they learned it and liked it), and the suggestion
is (almost) always rejected, in fav
Sturla Molden writes:
> Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>> Sturla Molden writes:
>>
>>> Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>>>
Many of these students suggest Python as the
development language (they learned it and liked it), and the suggestion
is (almost) always rejected, in favor of Java or C# or
Am 06.06.14 13:20, schrieb Alain Ketterlin:
Chris Angelico writes:
It's impossible to accidentally call a base class's method when you
ought to have called the overriding method in the subclass, which is a
risk in C++ [2].
I don't how this can happen in C++, unless you actually have an instan
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 20:41:09 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 06/06/2014 12:28 AM, Travis Griggs wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 1:14, Alain Ketterlin
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Swift's memory management is similar to python's (ref. counting).
>>> Which makes me think that a subset of python with
On 06/06/2014 12:28 AM, Travis Griggs wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 1:14, Alain Ketterlin
>> wrote:
>>
>> Swift's memory management is similar to python's (ref. counting).
>> Which makes me think that a subset of python with the same type
>> safety would be an instant success.
>
> Except th
Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>> When is static analysis actually needed and for what purpose?
>
> For example WCET analysis (where predictability is more important than
> performance). Or code with strong security constraint. Or overflow
> detection tools. Or race condition analyzers. And there are ma
Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> Sturla Molden writes:
>
>> Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>>
>>> Many of these students suggest Python as the
>>> development language (they learned it and liked it), and the suggestion
>>> is (almost) always rejected, in favor of Java or C# or C/C++.
>>
>> And it was almost
On 6/6/2014 7:11 AM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
Terry Reedy writes:
On 6/5/2014 4:07 PM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
When I compile Cython modules I use LLVM on this computer.
Cython is not Python, it is another language, with an incompatible
syntax.
Cython compiles Python with optional extension
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Alain Ketterlin
wrote:
>> It's impossible to accidentally call a base class's method when you
>> ought to have called the overriding method in the subclass, which is a
>> risk in C++ [2].
>
> I don't how this can happen in C++, unless you actually have an instance
>
Sturla Molden writes:
> On 05/06/14 22:27, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>> I have seen dozens of projects where Python was dismissed because of the
>> lack of static typing, and the lack of static analysis tools.
[...]
> When is static analysis actually needed and for what purpose?
For example WCET a
Chris Angelico writes:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:23 AM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 05/06/2014 21:07, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>>>
>>> Sturla Molden writes:
>>>
On 05/06/14 10:14, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> Type safety.
Perhaps. Python has strong type safety.
>>>
>>> Come on
Sturla Molden writes:
> Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>
>> Many of these students suggest Python as the
>> development language (they learned it and liked it), and the suggestion
>> is (almost) always rejected, in favor of Java or C# or C/C++.
>
> And it was almost always the wrong decision...
I think
Terry Reedy writes:
> On 6/5/2014 4:07 PM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>
>>> When I compile Cython modules I use LLVM on this computer.
>>
>> Cython is not Python, it is another language, with an incompatible
>> syntax.
>
> Cython compiles Python with optional extensions that allow additional
> speed
Travis Griggs writes:
>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 1:14, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>>
>> Swift's memory management is similar to python's (ref. counting). Which
>> makes me think that a subset of python with the same type safety would
>> be an instant success.
>
> Except that while you don't need to regu
> On Jun 5, 2014, at 1:14, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>
> Swift's memory management is similar to python's (ref. counting). Which
> makes me think that a subset of python with the same type safety would
> be an instant success.
Except that while you don't need to regularly worry about cycles in py
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 01:54:32 +0200, Sturla Molden wrote:
> When is static analysis actually needed and for what purpose? The
> problem seems to be that managers, team leaders, CEOs, or (insert your
> favorite tite), are not qualified to answer this question. So to be on
> the safe side they go for
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:21:26 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Sturla Molden
>> wrote:
>>> You cannot spoof the type of an object in Python.
>>
>> Not without fiddling around. Python 3.4 on win32:
> [...]
>>>
On Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:21:26 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Sturla Molden
> wrote:
>> You cannot spoof the type of an object in Python.
>
> Not without fiddling around. Python 3.4 on win32:
[...]
x = Foo()
x.spam()
> <__main__.Foo object at 0x0169AB10> s
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 23:13:00 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> I'll simply say that I
> understand Python to be strongly, dynamically typed.
Correct.
Anyone who hasn't done so needs to read this:
http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/
I wouldn't quite go so far as to say
On 06/06/14 02:13, Roy Smith wrote:
> Well, you *can* play evil games with the struct module :-)
But then you are asking for it, it does not happen by accident.
Sturla
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article ,
Sturla Molden wrote:
> On 05/06/14 22:27, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> > I have seen dozens of projects where Python was dismissed because of the
> > lack of static typing, and the lack of static analysis tools.
>
> If you are worried your code will bring down the next Ariane launch,
On 06/06/14 01:41, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> s/almost// :)
Sometimes it is the right decision, like when your code is firmware for
some avionics or medial life-support apparatus.
Sturla
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 05/06/14 22:27, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
> I have seen dozens of projects where Python was dismissed because of the
> lack of static typing, and the lack of static analysis tools.
If you are worried your code will bring down the next Ariane launch, I
can understand this argument. If you are onl
On 06/06/2014 00:03, Sturla Molden wrote:
Alain Ketterlin wrote:
Many of these students suggest Python as the
development language (they learned it and liked it), and the suggestion
is (almost) always rejected, in favor of Java or C# or C/C++.
And it was almost always the wrong decision...
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> You cannot spoof the type of an object in Python.
Not without fiddling around. Python 3.4 on win32:
>>> class Foo:
def spam(self):
print(self,"spams")
>>> class Bar:
def spam(self):
print(self,"eats spam")
>>> x = F
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
