On 2005-11-30, Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30 Nov 2005 10:57:04 GMT in comp.lang.python, Antoon Pardon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing*
On 2005-11-30, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things
from it.
You cast this in way to general
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2005-11-30, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd be wrong. Can denotes a possibility, not a certainty.
You didn't write:
Removing things can make a language more powerfull.
You wrote:
You can make a language more powerfull by removing
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We don't talk much about how you produce buffer
overfows in Python, but people have asked for that as well. Adding
ways to write hard-to-read code is frowned upon. And so on.
Do you mean people have asked for the possibility that a buffer
overflow would
On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things
from it.
You cast this in way to general terms. The logic conclusion
from this statements is that the most powerfull language
is the
On 30 Nov 2005 10:57:04 GMT in comp.lang.python, Antoon Pardon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things
from it.
You cast this in way to general terms.
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing*
things from it.
You cast this in way to general terms. The logic conclusion
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2005-11-29, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things
from it.
You cast this in way to general terms. The logic conclusion
from this statements is
On 2005-11-28, Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with.
The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You see, you can make languages more powerful by *removing* things
from it.
You cast this in way to general terms. The logic conclusion
from this statements is that the most powerfull language
is the empty language.
The only way you reach that
Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The usual response is That's not the Python way. That's not calling
someone dumb, just pointing out that
Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with.
The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things
that could be used counter the python philosophy, than search for
things that enable
Op 2005-11-28, Serge Orlov schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon wrote:
No it wasn't. From what I have picked up, the ternary operator
was finaly introduced after one of the developers tripped over
the commonly used idiom to simulate a ternary operator, which
can fail in certain cases.
Op 2005-11-25, EP schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What is the philosophy? I'm not the one to answer that,
but I do use import this for reference, and it seems to
answer some of the points in this thread:
import this
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op 2005-11-25, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with.
The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things
that could be used counter the python
Bryan wrote:
i agree with you... pyrex should be part of the python distribution :)
And this has been discussed on python-dev. Greg has stated though that
he doesn't feel it's ready (there are other factors, but this one is
overriding). There were also discussions about the fact that to get
Antoon Pardon wrote:
No it wasn't. From what I have picked up, the ternary operator
was finaly introduced after one of the developers tripped over
the commonly used idiom to simulate a ternary operator, which
can fail in certain cases.
Anyway, when I was arguing for a ternary operator in
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those two statements say the same thing. Part of the Python philosphy,
from import this, is that there should only be one obvious way to do
it. By enabling that part of Python's philosphy, you're automatically
limiting python to not allow other -
Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those two statements say the same thing. Part of the Python philosphy,
from import this, is that there should only be one obvious way to do
it. By enabling that part of Python's philosphy, you're automatically
Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The usual response is That's not the Python way. That's not calling
someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand
the Python way.
That is not the Python way, is just saying
Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different programming styles are appropriate for different
tasks, different times and different places, different people.
And like morality,
Op 2005-11-24, Delaney, Timothy (Tim) schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And this is the crux of it - the majority of such proposals come from
people who apparently haven't actually used python that much, and are
trying to impose things from other languages onto it. There's nothing
wrong with
Antoon Pardon wrote:
Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different programming styles are appropriate for different
tasks, different times and different places, different people.
Delaney, Timothy (Tim) wrote:
It is without a doubt though incumbent on anyone proposing new
*features* to have a solid understanding of what they are proposing,
what it would affect, any backwards incompatibilities, and whether it
fits into the python philosophy (import this).
Sure. However,
Ben Sizer wrote:
The problem you get, is that the only people who are ever likely to
need to ask questions, are those who don't fully understand Python, by
definition.
really? I'd say that most people that ask questions on comp.lang.python
do understand Python pretty well, and just needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And exactly what is python's spirit/philosophy ? It seems to me that
they are often used in a liberal way, just to support one's argument
that whatever is not in the CURRENT python should not be there.
Yes, those contentious terms pythonic and unpythonic which, as
Should the priority be to enable python's philosophy or should
it be the priority to limit python to only allow it's philosophy.
One groups seems to think that python's spirit is not broken
by allowing things that seem counter to it, as long as people
can without much trouble, work within
But suppose someone came up with a Python compiler. It
would compile any Python program but there would be no
speed benefit unless you carefully wrote the code to not use
many of Python's dynamic features, so that either by type
inferencing or programmer supplied static declarations, the
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The usual response is That's not the Python way. That's not calling
someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand
the Python way.
That
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well this is, is one thing I have a problem with.
The python people seem to be more concerned with fighting things
that could be used counter the python philosophy, than search for
things that enable working in the python philosophy.
And what's wrong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
I agree that sometimes those who shoot such proposals down in flames
might be more considerate of the feelings of the proposers, but life is
short and we are all imperfect.
Well, no one is obliged to be considerate about other's feeling, that
Op 2005-11-23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My own experience with adapting to Guido's design-view relates to
tuples and lists. To Guido, tuples are for records and lists are for
iteration. My own inclination is to view tuples as immutable lists.
Accordingly, it seems obvious
On 24 Nov 2005 10:21:51 GMT, Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But only Guido, thinks like Guido and then even Guido may now think
differently than he thought before. And what if Guido had a bad day
when he came up with something, should we just adopt to what he
had in mind without
Op 2005-11-24, Mike Meyer schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
I do think that the Python development community believes they do,
or more accurately, that if someone wants to use a different style,
they can go use something else.
In
Antoon Pardon wrote:
When we notice that people are fighting the language, sometimes
the best approach is to change the language so that there is
less reason to fight the language.
I think just don't disregard the other side without considering their
rationale is enough, and I mean the other
Op 2005-11-24, Simon Brunning schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 24 Nov 2005 10:21:51 GMT, Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But only Guido, thinks like Guido and then even Guido may now think
differently than he thought before. And what if Guido had a bad day
when he came up with something,
On 24 Nov 2005 11:30:04 GMT, Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But he's consistently a
better judge of language design than I am, and in all likelihood
better than you, too. If you like Python, it's 'cos you like the
decisions he's made over many years.
So, that makes that about a
Op 2005-11-24, Simon Brunning schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 24 Nov 2005 11:30:04 GMT, Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But he's consistently a
better judge of language design than I am, and in all likelihood
better than you, too. If you like Python, it's 'cos you like the
decisions
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:49:59 +, Simon Brunning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Nov 2005 10:21:51 GMT, Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But only Guido, thinks like Guido and then even Guido may now think
differently than he thought before. And what if Guido had a bad day
when he came
On 24/11/05, Bengt Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where my first impulse is to think that one of decisions is wrong,
nine times out of ten in time I'll come to find that I was wrong and
he was right.
You have a reservation about that other 10% ? ;-)
The other 10%, I've just not worked it
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The usual response is That's not the Python way. That's not calling
someone dumb, just pointing out that they don't yet fully understand
the Python way.
That is not the Python way, is just saying Python doesn't have it
in other words. So it can't be the
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different programming styles are appropriate for different
tasks, different times and different places, different people.
And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe
that one style of programming fits all
Ben Sizer wrote:
I agree with you that sometimes, the responses here can come across as
a bit condescending. I don't think this is intentional, as everybody
seems friendly enough, but I do see a pattern of people replying to a
query and implying that the original poster should know better
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different programming styles are appropriate for different
tasks, different times and different places, different people.
And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe
that one style
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it seems that quite some people
don't see the language as the creator or wants them to see it.
Here's my two cents on this recurring theme.
While nothing forces a particular programming style, there is some
merit to swimming with the current rather than against it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it seems that quite some people
don't see the language as the creator or wants them to see it.
Here's my two cents on this recurring theme.
While nothing forces a particular programming style, there is some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different programming styles are appropriate for different
tasks, different times and different places, different people.
And like morality, government, or economics, I do not believe
that one style of programming fits all situations.
If I read you right, what you're
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Different programming styles are appropriate for different tasks,
different times and different places, different people. And like
morality, government, or economics, I do not believe that one style of
programming fits all situations. But
Mike Meyer wrote:
I do think that the Python development community believes they do,
or more accurately, that if someone wants to use a different style,
they can go use something else.
In other words, they believe that you should use a screwdriver to
drive screws, and not a hammer. You
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
I do think that the Python development community believes they do,
or more accurately, that if someone wants to use a different style,
they can go use something else.
In other words, they believe that you should use a
Mike Meyer wrote:
Whatever it is, trying to turn Python into a tool for dealing with it
isn't the right thing to do.
Still this tone, and logic. This statement alone is right except that
it may not be what was about.
I think that it is possible to include in Python, things that are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're the one that wants to use the hammer to do whatever it is, not
me. I don't believe in silver bullets. Python is good at what it
does. If I need a different tool, I use a different tool, rather than
try and mangle a good tool into something
Mike Meyer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're the one that wants to use the hammer to do whatever it is, not
me. I don't believe in silver bullets. Python is good at what it
does. If I need a different tool, I use a different tool, rather than
try and mangle a good
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ
is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa.
I was not talking about the believe, I was talking about the way you
presented it. You are setting up an imaginary me, which is not me.
And
Mike Meyer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ
is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa.
I was not talking about the believe, I was talking about the way you
presented it. You are setting up an imaginary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
[...]
By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use
cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over
which of the many proposals should be adopted.
That is not the impression I get on here. The impression I get
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ
is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa.
I was not talking about the believe, I was talking about the way you
presented it. You are
Steve Holden wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
[...]
By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use
cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over
which of the many proposals should be adopted.
That is not the impression I get on
Steve Holden wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mike Meyer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe Python attracts people who share that belief. After all, TRTFTJ
is implies TSBOOWTDI, and vice versa.
I was not talking about the believe, I was talking about the way you
59 matches
Mail list logo
