Hello Everyone,
I have to say:
Python! Is! Truly! Amazing!
So I started with python about a month ago and put in 24 hours across
three weekends.
My first project was to recreate a simple maze-let thingie that I
remember as my first program way back on the Vic-20. That was a quick
snap and a
Oh yeah, and farmer, no I didn't yet get back to making an exe by
fixing the problem with pygame2exe i just got disctracted getting other
things done so fast!
-Erik
www.gopetslive.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
somehow lost my j's:
www.erikbethke.com/Python/screenshot02.jpg
www.erikbethke.com/Python/screenshot03.jpg
www.erikbethke.com/Python/screenshot04.jpg
www.erikbethke.com/Python/screenshot05.jpg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I have to say:
>
> Python! Is! Truly! Amazing!
>
> So I started with python about a month ago and put in 24 hours across
> three weekends.
...
>
> Truly thank you.
>
> -Erik
>
I
"Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have NEVER experienced this kind of programming joy.
Yep, I feel the same way since learning Python. It's really a
productive and pleasant language.
Congratulations on all your game successes!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ron Garret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I have NEVER experienced this kind of programming joy.
>
> Just wait until you discover Lisp!
>
> ;-)
>
> rg
Shouldn't that be ;-)))
you did this with pygame!!??
"Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> somehow lost my j's:
>
> www.erikbethke.com/Python/screenshot02.jpg
> www.erikbethke.com/Python/screenshot03.jpg
> www.erikbethke.com/Python/screenshot04.jpg
> www.erikbethke.com/Python/screens
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ron Garret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have NEVER experienced this kind of programming joy.
>>
>> Just
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have NEVER experienced this kind of programming joy.
Just wait until you discover Lisp!
;-)
rg
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Erik Bethke wrote:
Anyways, I am now a super gushing fan-boy. I have worked my way up
from a scripter working in crappy proprietary languages to a c++
programmer, to now biz guy. But when I walked away from programming I
gave it a grim farewell, c++ work is good, but so much mind goes into
it to
The way that Paul Graham sees Lisp:
()))yes!)
)
"Roy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ron Garret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>
Ron Garret wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have NEVER experienced this kind of programming joy.
Just wait until you discover Lisp!
;-)
I've had it with all those lisp posts lately ;-)
There were functional and non-functional programming languag
> "jfj" == jfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jfj> There were functional and non-functional programming
jfj> languages (the first being *much* simpler to
jfj> implement). There is a *reason* people chose C over
jfj> lisp. It's not that we were all blind and didn't see the
jfj
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:05:48 +0200, Ville Vainio wrote:
>> "jfj" == jfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> jfj> There were functional and non-functional programming
> jfj> languages (the first being *much* simpler to
> jfj> implement). There is a *reason* people chose C over
> j
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I have NEVER experienced this kind of programming joy.
> >
> >
> > Just wait until you discover Lisp!
> >
> > ;-)
Ron Garret wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ron Garret wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have NEVER experienced this kind of programming joy.
Just wait until you discover Lisp!
;-)
I've had it with all those
[Erik]
> I am now a super gushing fan-boy.
+1 Quote of the Week!
--
Richie Hindle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz)
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Ron Garret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "Erik Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Ron Garret schreef:
> But this topic does bring up a legitimate question: I have a bunch of
> code that generates HTML using PRINT statements. I need to convert all
> this code to return strings rather than actually printing them (so I can
> use the results to populate templates). In Lisp I c
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JanC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something like this:
>
> py> import cStringIO
> py> import sys
> py>
> py> def foo():
> ... print "test"
> ...
> py> f = cStringIO.StringIO()
> py> sys.stdout = f
> py> foo()
> py> s = f.getvalue()
> py> sys.stdout = sys.__std
Ron Garret <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (with-output-to-string (s)
> (let ( (*standard-output* s) )
> (call-html-generating-code)
> s))
>
> Is there an equivalent Python trick to capture a function call's output
> as a string?
I've sometimes replaced sys.stdout (and/or sys.stderr) to
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simo Melenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've sometimes replaced sys.stdout (and/or sys.stderr) to
> capture/redirect debugging information in existing code that has
> unwisely just "print"ed error and warning messages, instead of using
> sys.stderr or error logg
Just wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Simo Melenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've sometimes replaced sys.stdout (and/or sys.stderr) to
> > capture/redirect debugging information in existing code that has
> > unwisely just "print"ed error and warning messages, instead of
using
>
(Not sure if my other message arrived)
I am guilty of using this idiom, too.
The standard library
http://www.python.org/dev/doc/devel/lib/module-sys.html#l2h-396
says:
"""
__stdin__
__stdout__
__stderr__
These objects contain the original values of stdin, stderr and
stdout at the start of the p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Just <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Simo Melenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've sometimes replaced sys.stdout (and/or sys.stderr) to
> > capture/redirect debugging information in existing code that has
> > unwisely just "pr
Just schreef:
> You should always save stdout instead of using __stdout__. It may not be
> the same!
You're right, especially when this code would execute in an (at
programming time) unknown context.
--
JanC
"Be strict when sending and tolerant when receiving."
RFC 1958 - Architectural Prin
Just <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Simo Melenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ... sys.stdout = sys.__stdout__
> Aargh, I can't believe how widespread this idiom is :-(. See my other
> reply in this thread: DON'T use sys.__stdout__. Ever.
It probably d
27 matches
Mail list logo
