Re: The Industry choice

On 6 Jan 2005 20:07:19 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: >>Nope. That is not what I'm arguing. Really, I think you have >>jumped to conclusion about that: I merely pointed out that >>I don't like what I perceive as end effect of what GPL license >>writers are attempting to achieve: vendor loc

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: Oh, and by the way - since Python bytecode can be relatively easily decompiled to source, could it interpreted to "really" count as source code and not binary? What are the consequences of releasing code _written in Python_ as GPLed? Well, to your first question, in a word 'no', i

Re: The Industry choice

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 12:06:42 -0800, Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bulba! wrote: > >> On 6 Jan 2005 19:01:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: >> >> Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to *modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only

Re: The Industry choice

Alex Martelli wrote: Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to *modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source. ... (Problems may come if some

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: On 6 Jan 2005 19:01:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to *modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source. That's not true

Re: The Industry choice

Paul Rubin wrote: Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to *modifications you make* to the GPL software. Well, only under an unusually broad notion of "modification". True enough. It can be difficult, in software development,

Re: The Industry choice

On 6 Jan 2005 19:01:46 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: >>Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to >>*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which >>your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source. >That's not true -- con

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From the viewpoint of looking at availability of source code A, > it's completely irrelevant if those guys are fishmongers or > make derived work A' and redistribute only binary of A'. Not > a single line of publicly available source code appeared or > disapp

Re: The Industry choice

Alex Martelli wrote: Until some judge passes some judgment, the intent and effect of GPL must remain a matter of opinion. But RMS's opinion is probably more meaningful than mine or yours -- certainly regarding intent, given his role in designing that license. But it may not have practical effect

Re: The Industry choice

Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to > *modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which > your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source. ... > (Problems may come if someone licenses

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Suppose they want to ensure "no forking" or that "bugfixes > and enhancements of original software are given back". > > OK, LGPL is fine for this goal. When you say "they see it Neither LGPL nor GPL can ``ensure "no forking"'', nor can any other open-source l

Re: The Industry choice

Paul Rubin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > > Yes, apart from libraries and similar cases (frameworks etc), it's no > > doubt rare for closed-source "end-user packages" to be sold with > > licenses that include source and allow you to "do anything wit

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: I've read Novell license of internal development tools it provides (which I reviewed for some purpose). This is I think relevant part: I'm not saying licenses like you claim don't exist. Sure, they may exist and they suck. The point is, they have _limited impact_ and by the very

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:42:42 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You see, I'm not disagreeing with you that your model applies _where it applies_. I only disagree that it applies in face of stronger forces. Now what kind of forces is dominant in most frequent scenarios wou

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: And note that it was definitely not in his personal interest, whoever that was, a person or group of persons, as he/they risked getting fired for that. This doesn't necessarily follow. The decision-maker in question may have received a fat bonus for having found such a technic

Re: The Industry choice

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: > >I don't like what I perceive as end effect of what GPL license > >writers are attempting to achieve: vendor lock-in. > And my counter-argument is that I believe your perception is wrong. If > I agreed with your focus on lock-in, I'd say that what the GPL is tr

Re: [OT] Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 22:42:01 +0100, Peter Dembinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >[...] > >> That's remarkable, first time I see smth like this - >> out of curiosity, could you say a word where was that? >Are you the same Bulba I know from alt.pl.comp.os.hacking? No, but I like to see I have an ev

Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:27:55 -0800, Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>That's generally the goal of the Free Software Foundation: they think >>>all users should have the freedom to modify and/or distribute your code. >> >> You have the freedom of having to wash my car then. ;-) >A more

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Nope. That is not what I'm arguing. Really, I think you have >jumped to conclusion about that: I merely pointed out that >I don't like what I perceive as end effect of what GPL license >writers are attempting to achieve: vendor l

Re: The Industry choice

"Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Absolutely not. Some people want to share under very specific conditions, > hence the proliferation of licenses in the open source world. Indeed, Prof. Lessig at Standford University, I believe, recently designed the

Re: The Industry choice

"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Which I find again wrong: suppose this developer used GPL-ed > > library A, developed patches B and C. He provided you with > > the source code of publicly available library A and a patch > > C, but he doesn't want to release patch B. > > Then he does

Re: The Industry choice

On 06 Jan 2005 15:38:53 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Making derived work proprietary in no way implies that the base >> work is publicly unavailable anymore. >Since you want to be able to incorporate GPL code in your proprietary >products, Nope. That is not what I'm arg

Re: The Industry choice

On 06 Jan 2005 14:16:13 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Yes, apart from libraries and similar cases (frameworks etc), it's no >> doubt rare for closed-source "end-user packages" to be sold with >> licenses that include source and allow you to "do anything with it". >> >> Ho

Re: The Industry choice

"Bulba!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Which I find again wrong: suppose this developer used GPL-ed > library A, developed patches B and C. He provided you with > the source code of publicly available library A and a patch > C, but he doesn't want to release patch

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to >*modifications you make* to the GPL software. The *only* way in which >your code can be 'infected' by the GPL is if you copy GPL source. That's not tru

Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 10:38:53 -0800, Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >It's also noteworthy to consider that many times, waste happens not >because of corruption or self-interest, but simply because of errors >of judgement. Precisely. That is one of the main points I was trying to get

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Making derived work proprietary in no way implies that the base > work is publicly unavailable anymore. Since you want to be able to incorporate GPL code in your proprietary products, and say there's no problem since the base work is still available from the sa

Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:42:42 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You see, I'm not disagreeing with you that your model applies >> _where it applies_. I only disagree that it applies in face of >> stronger forces. Now what kind of forces is dominant in >> most frequent scenarios would

Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:27:49 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>I'd go further. It's not possible to force anyone to share, but the >>>GPL aims to remove software from a system that instead aims to force >>>people NOT to share. >> Nope. IMHO, GPL attempts to achieve the vendor lo

Re: The Industry choice

Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Note that the so-called 'viral' nature of GPL code only applies to > *modifications you make* to the GPL software. Well, only under an unusually broad notion of "modification". The GPL applies to any program incorporating GPL'd components, e.g. if I di

Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:20:35 +0100, Stefan Axelsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If GPL folks had their way, it would not be possible not to "share" >> _anything_ you create. It is widely acknowledged that GPL >> license has the "viral" aspect of extending itself on your >> software - can you po

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:39:11 GMT, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That's generally the goal of the Free Software Foundation: they think all users should have the freedom to modify and/or distribute your code. You have the freedom of having to wash my car then. ;-) A more a

Re: The Industry choice

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Yes, apart from libraries and similar cases (frameworks etc), it's no > doubt rare for closed-source "end-user packages" to be sold with > licenses that include source and allow you to "do anything with it". > > However, allowing customization (at least

[OT] Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > That's remarkable, first time I see smth like this - > out of curiosity, could you say a word where was that? Are you the same Bulba I know from alt.pl.comp.os.hacking? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 15:44:03 GMT, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I was thinking more of end-user packages: if you somehow could lay your >hands on the source code of Visual Studio itself, you're still not >allowed to do anything with it. And why would anybody want to waste their tim

Re: The Industry choice

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 08:39:11 GMT, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If GPL folks had their way, it would not be possible not to "share" >> _anything_ you create. >That's generally the goal of the Free Software Foundation: they think >all users should have the freedom to modify and/or

Re: The Industry choice

Steve Holden wrote: Bulba! wrote: I was utterly shocked. Having grown up in Soviet times I have been used to seeing precious resources wasted by organizations as if resources were growing on trees, but smth like this?! In a shining ideal country of Germany?! Unthinkable. Indeed not. Quite often th

Re: The Industry choice

Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > >>Can you point to closed-source licenses that allow using the code *at > >>all*? ... > > Is this what you mean by "allow using the code *at all*"? I think it's > > a pretty common arrangement when the code being sold under closed-source > > te

Re: The Industry choice

Alex Martelli wrote: Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Can you point to closed-source licenses that allow using the code *at all*? As I recall, for example, Microsoft Visual C++ came with sources for various libraries; all that the (closed-source) license for those libraries forbade you f

Re: The Industry choice

Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you point to closed-source licenses that allow using the code *at > all*? As I recall, for example, Microsoft Visual C++ came with sources for various libraries; all that the (closed-source) license for those libraries forbade you from doing was to

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:19:56 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: [...] You see, I'm not disagreeing with you that your model applies _where it applies_. I only disagree that it applies in face of stronger forces. Now what kind of forces is dominant in most frequent scenari

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: On 04 Jan 2005 19:25:12 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: "Rob Emmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Me personally, I believe in free software, but always talk about open source. My answer regarding forcing people to share -- I like the GPL -- and I am perfectly hap

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: Nope. IMHO, GPL attempts to achieve the vendor lock-in. For different purposes than another well-known vendor, but it still does. It's actually even worse: the only thing you can't share on a well-known vendor's platform is the software written by that well-known vendor -- you can ch

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: If GPL folks had their way, it would not be possible not to "share" _anything_ you create. That's generally the goal of the Free Software Foundation: they think all users should have the freedom to modify and/or distribute your code. Most people who use the GPL don't feel that way;

Re: The Industry choice

> I'd go further. It's not possible to force anyone to share, but the > GPL aims to remove software from a system that instead aims to force > people NOT to share. Well said. I do think the point is -- no one liscence fits all. The GPL is a great tool for those that write software for the pu

Re: The Industry choice

On 04 Jan 2005 19:25:12 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: >"Rob Emmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Me personally, I believe in free software, but always talk about open >> source. My answer regarding forcing people to share -- I like the GPL >> -- and I am perfectly happy t

Re: The Industry choice

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:19:56 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: >Say that the city has ten hat shops of the same quality. One is in >Piazza dell'Unita`, all the way to the Northern border of the city. One >is in Piazza Saragozza, all the way to the Southern border. The other >eight

Re: Cookbook 2nd ed Credits (was Re: The Industry choice)

Alex Martelli wrote: [...] If you wished to count only _authored_ recipes (but that's a bit misleading, since in several recipes-as-published there is a merge of two or three separately submitted and accepted recipes, and here I'm counting only the first-listed-author per published-recipe...): 1:

Re: Cookbook 2nd ed Credits (was Re: The Industry choice)

Wow I didn't realize that I made that significant of a contribution :-) > 3: 9 u'John Nielsen' Well, I guess I did and I didn't. I worked hard to put postings up before I started taking classes again at a university last fall (with little kids and working full time, classes are a frustrating ti

Re: Cookbook 2nd ed Credits (was Re: The Industry choice)

Jacek Generowicz ha scritto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: ...but each still gets ONE free copy...!-) Who gets Luther Blissett's copy ? :-) And are all the Luther Blissetts the same Luther Blisset ? no, some of them are Wu Ming http://www.wumingfoundation.com/ (from http://www.lutherb

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > First, even though I disagree with you in places, thanks for > this reply - it enhanced my knowledge of the topic in some You're welcome! > What you wrote regards especially strong the industries you pointed > at: fashion, jewellery, esp. I think in tho

Re: Cookbook 2nd ed Credits (was Re: The Industry choice)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > ...but each still gets ONE free copy...!-) Who gets Luther Blissett's copy ? :-) And are all the Luther Blissetts the same Luther Blisset ? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frankly, I find such models to be built on over-stretched analogies > to physics - how _exactly_ is gravity supposed to be an analogy > equivalent to economic "forces"? Sure such model can be built - but > is it adequate in explaining real-world phenomenons? An

Re: The Industry choice

"Rob Emmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Me personally, I believe in free software, but always talk about open > source. My answer regarding forcing people to share -- I like the GPL > -- and I am perfectly happy to have anyone who does not like the GPL > not to use any GPLed software. I don'

Re: The Industry choice

Peter Hansen wrote: I know that I've started many one-man projects over the years, and only slowly (I'm a little thick, you see) came to realize that while it's incredibly easy to start something, seeing it through to the end is rather more difficult. At this point, perhaps largely as a result of a

Re: The Industry choice

> But the vision of what? Do we have clear, detailed, unambigous vision > _of the process_ or just big ideological axes to grind? I'm afraid > we're close to the latter situation - even though Python is remarkably > different in this area than the "free software": clean, pragmatic, > effective, fre

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! wrote: The Americans show the French engineers a working prototype. The French engineers scratch their heads and ask warily: "OK, it works in practice; but will it work in theory?" I once worked with a computer built by two graduate students who formed a company. The scuttlebutt was th

Re: Cookbook 2nd ed Credits (was Re: The Industry choice)

Alex Martelli said unto the world upon 2005-01-04 11:15: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But then I have THREE published recipes!! Does that mean that I get three free copies of the cookbook ? ;-) ...ti piacerebbe eh...?-) Sorry, "one each", even though you have _five_ credits. For the curious, here

Re: The Industry choice

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:16:35 -0600, "Rob Emmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This "free software" (not so much OSS) notion "but you can >> hire programmers to fix it" doesn't really happen in practice, >> at least not frequently: because this company/guy remains >> ALONE with this technology, the

Re: The Industry choice

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 23:59:53 -0800, "Eric Pederson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm decades behind on economics research, but I remember >modeling clustering based on mass and distance (the gravity model). >On a decision making basis there seems to be an aspect of it that is >binary: (0) either

Re: The Industry choice

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:18:43 -0600, Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This "free software" (not so much OSS) notion "but you can >> hire programmers to fix it" doesn't really happen in practice, >> at least not frequently: because this company/guy remains >> ALONE with this technology, the c

Re: The Industry choice

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 00:08:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) wrote: >> True. I have a bit of interest in economics, so I've seen e.g. >> this example - why is it that foreign branches of companies >> tend to cluster themselves in one city or country (e.g. >It's not just _foreign_ companie

Re: Cookbook 2nd ed Credits (was Re: The Industry choice)

Do contributors of less than 5 recipes get a copy too? :-? Btw, is there a comprehensive list of ALL contributors put up anywhere? On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:15:53 +0100, Alex Martelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But then I have THREE published recipes!! > > Does tha

Cookbook 2nd ed Credits (was Re: The Industry choice)

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But then I have THREE published recipes!! > Does that mean that I get three free copies of the cookbook ? ;-) ...ti piacerebbe eh...?-) Sorry, "one each", even though you have _five_ credits. For the curious, here's the roster of most credited contributors (remember

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alan Gauld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:08:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron >Laird) wrote: > >> I argue that it's a false opposition to categorize projects in >> terms of use of single languages. Many projects are MUCH better >> off with a m

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Dembinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: . . . >def foo(x): >return str(x) > >str = foo(x) > >And now, let's say that foo()'s definition is in another module. >It is hard for a programmer

Re: The Industry choice

Alex Martelli wrote: Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stefan Axelsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, ignoring most of the debate about static vs. dynamic typing, I've also longed for 'use strict'. You can use __slots__ to get the effect you're after. Well, sort of; it only works for instance

Re: The Industry choice

But then I have THREE published recipes!! Does that mean that I get three free copies of the cookbook ? ;-) Michele -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Industry choice

Alex Martelli commented: > It's not just _foreign_ companies -- regional clustering of all kinds > of > business activities is a much more widespread phenomenon. Although I'm > not sure he was the first to research the subject, Tjalling Koopmans, > as > part of his lifework on normative econom

Re: The Industry choice

> Theoretically. Because even though the source code is available > and free (like in beer as well as in speech) the work of > programmers isn't cheap. > > This "free software" (not so much OSS) notion "but you can > hire programmers to fix it" doesn't really happen in practice, > at least not f

Re: The Industry choice

Steve Holden wrote: Whereas the bleached bones of the failed open source projects are visible for all to see on the SourceForge beach. It occurs to me that the value of those projects can be judged in a number of ways. One of them is in how much those involved in the projects have learned from th

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Aahz wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>Aahz wrote: That's funny -- Bruce Eckel talks about how he used to love checked exceptions but has come to regard them

Re: The Industry choice

Steve Holden wrote: Aahz wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aahz wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin wrote: I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used them but have been coming around a

Re: The Industry choice

Aahz wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Aahz wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin wrote: I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used them but have been coming around about them. There's

Re: The Industry choice

Terry Reedy wrote: "Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well clearly there's a spectrum. However, I have previously written that the number of open source projects that appear to get stuck somewhere between release 0.1 and release 0.9 is amazingly large, an

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >"Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Well clearly there's a spectrum. However, I have previously written that >> the number of open source projects that appear to get stuck somewher

Re: The Industry choice

Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Roy Smith wrote: >> "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> None has been reserved because there is no known good use for >>> overriding it. >> Should I infer from the above that there's a known bad use? > > Yes: making None equal to the integer 3

Re: The Industry choice

Paul Rubin schreef: > The AOL web server also uses tcl as a built-in dynamic content > generation language (i.e. sort of like mod_python), or at least it > used to. It still does: """ AOLserver is America Online's Open-Source web server. AOLserver is the backbone of the largest and busiest produ

Re: The Industry choice

Roy Smith wrote: "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: None has been reserved because there is no known good use for overriding it. Should I infer from the above that there's a known bad use? Yes: making None equal to the integer 3. That's one of six known bad uses it's possible there are

Re: The Industry choice

Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Around here, AOL/Moviephone has been trolling for years for Tcl people; > I guess that counts as a big company. The AOL web server also uses tcl as a built-in dynamic content generation language (i.e. sort of like mod_python), or at least it used to. -- ht

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This "free software" (not so much OSS) notion "but you can > hire programmers to fix it" doesn't really happen in practice, > at least not frequently: because this company/guy remains > ALONE with this technology, the costs are unacceptable. Yes, but fixing p

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True. I have a bit of interest in economics, so I've seen e.g. > this example - why is it that foreign branches of companies > tend to cluster themselves in one city or country (e.g. It's not just _foreign_ companies -- regional clustering of all kinds of busin

Re: The Industry choice

"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > None has been reserved because there is no known good use for overriding > it. Should I infer from the above that there's a known bad use? > True and False will be reserved someday. I remember a lisp I used many years ago. If you tried to rebind nil,

Re: The Industry choice

"Steve Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Well clearly there's a spectrum. However, I have previously written that > the number of open source projects that appear to get stuck somewhere > between release 0.1 and release 0.9 is amazingly large, and does imply

Re: The Industry choice

"Bulba!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:08:01 -0500, Steve Holden > >>whereas when a company goes >>bust there's no guarantee the software IP will ever be extricated from >>the resulting mess. > > There is a good _chance_ here: money. Somebody

Re: The Industry choice

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 2004-I: "xundef.f", line 2: 'y' is set but never used. > 2005-W: "xundef.f", line 4: 'x' is used but never set. > 2153-W: "xundef.f", line 5, column 1: Subscript out of range. None of these are syntax errors. The first two of these

Re: The Industry choice

Roy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stefan Axelsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, ignoring most of the debate about static vs. dynamic typing, I've > > also longed for 'use strict'. > > You can use __slots__ to get the effect you're after. Well, sort of; it > only works for instance var

Re: The Industry choice

"Peter Dembinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Besides, shouldn't str be a reserved word or something? It is a name in the builtins module which is automatically searched after globals. Many experienced Pythoneers strongly advise against rebinding builtin name

Re: The Industry choice

Bulba! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > The point is obviously "cover your ass" attitude of managers: Managers get paid for taking risk :) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Industry choice

Peter Dembinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Peter Dembinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > >> str = foo(x) > > (ick!) it should be: > > bar = foo(x) Besides, shouldn't str be a reserved word or something? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Industry choice

Peter Dembinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > str = foo(x) (ick!) it should be: bar = foo(x) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: The Industry choice

Quoth Paul Rubin : | "Donn Cave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: |> Yes, it would be really weird if Python went that way, and the |> sort of idle speculations we were reading recently from Guido |> sure sounded like he knows better. But it's not like there aren't |> some int

Re: The Industry choice

Cameron Laird wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >. >[tale of *very* >typical experience >with non-software >engineers] >. >. > Don't start me!

Re: The Industry choice

Roy Smith wrote: >I think you've hit the nail on the head. In awk (and perl, and most >shells, and IIRC, FORTRAN), using an undefined variable silently gets >you a default value (empty string or zero). This tends to propagate >errors and make them very difficult to track down. You may recall corre

Re: The Industry choice

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird) wrote: > Let me add a cautionary note, though: Big Companies, > including Oracle, Software AG, IBM, Cisco, and so on, have > adopted Tcl over and over. All of them still rely on Tcl > for crucial products. All of them also have employees who > sincerely wonde

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: . [tale of *very* typical experience with non-software engineers] . . >use something like

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Aahz wrote: > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > >> Paul Rubin wrote: > >>> > >>>I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked

Re: The Industry choice

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:08:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Laird) wrote: >Let me add a cautionary note, though: Big Companies, >including Oracle, Software AG, IBM, Cisco, and so on, have >adopted Tcl over and over. All of them still rely on Tcl >for crucial products. All of them also have emp

Re: The Industry choice

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Aahz wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Paul Rubin wrote: >>> >>>I was pretty skeptical of Java's checked exceptions when I first used >>>them but have been coming around about them. Th

Re: The Industry choice

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:08:01 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There is the stability issue you mention... but also probably the fear >> issue. If you choose a solution from a major company -- then it fails for >> some reason or they drop the product -- it's their fault -- you've g

  1   2   >