For the Python world though, there does seem
to have been a change. A decade ago in this newsgroup, there were
frequent references to standard library source. I don't see that
much anymore.
Popularity has a price. A decade ago only hackers were exposed to
python who are happy to chat about
On Feb 2, 12:32 am, OKB (not okblacke)
brennospamb...@nobrenspambarn.net wrote:
Tim Wintle wrote:
(2) is especially important IMO - under half of the python
developers I have regularly worked with would feel comfortable
reading C - so for the other half reading C source code probably
On Feb 4, 9:34 pm, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
[PS Does not read properly in google docs though it reads ok in
acroread and evince ]
Sorry google docs does not like the pdf
Heres a ps
https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3gsacOF56PxOWUxZTVmOTQtYWIxNy00ZGFjLWEwODUtZDVkM2MyZGI5ZmRkhl=en
--
rusi wrote:
On Feb 2, 12:32 am, OKB (not okblacke)
I think, in general, the less anyone needs to know C even
exists, the better for Python; likewise, the more that people have
to mention the existence of C in a Python context, the worse for
Python. This may be a somewhat extreme
On Feb 5, 12:11 am, OKB (not okblacke)
brennospamb...@nobrenspambarn.net wrote:
Very interesting, thanks. I think Python has its own warts
comparable to some of those you mention, but not all. What bothers me
most is when practicality beats purity is invoked, with practicality
OKB (not okblacke), 04.02.2011 20:11:
I think Python has its own warts
comparable to some of those you mention, but not all. What bothers me
most is when practicality beats purity is invoked, with practicality
defined as doing it this way is faster in C.
Most of that should be gone in Python
Tim Wintle wrote:
However I think the biggest changes that have probably happened
with python itself are:
(1) More users for whom this is their first language.
(2) CS courses / training not teaching C (or pointer-based
languages).
(2) is especially important IMO - under half of the
On Jan 30, 6:47 am, Tim Wintle tim.win...@teamrubber.com wrote:
+1 - I think the source links are very useful (and thanks for pushing
them).
Happy to do it.
However I think the biggest changes that have probably happened with
python itself are:
(1) More users for whom this is their first
On Jan 30, 10:50 am, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
I note particularly the disclaimer that it was removed from wikipedia
[Like when your-unfavorite-TV-channel censors stuff you know it
deserves a second look ;-) ]
Oh you mean that channel that *claims* to provide a specific type of
On 1/31/2011 12:35 PM Raymond Hettinger said...
That would explain why fewer people look at the C source code.
However, even the parts of the standard library written in pure Python
don't seem to be getting read anymore, so I'm still inclined to
attribute the issue to 1) inconvenient placement
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:35:12 -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
However, even the parts of the standard library written in pure Python
don't seem to be getting read anymore, so I'm still inclined to
attribute the issue to 1) inconvenient placement of source code, 2) a
largish code base, and 3)
The following, meant for this thread, went to another my mistake :-)
--
On Feb 1, 1:35 am, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
However, even the parts of the standard library written in pure Python
don't seem to be getting read anymore, so I'm still inclined to
On Feb 1, 12:25 am, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
In short (at the risk of belonging to the equivalence class of others
whose names start with R) I would suggest a 4th point: Code cruft
Oh rusi, just come out of the closet already we accept you! :-)
--
On 1/31/11 10:38 PM, rantingrick wrote:
On Feb 1, 12:25 am, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
In short (at the risk of belonging to the equivalence class of others
whose names start with R) I would suggest a 4th point: Code cruft
Oh rusi, just come out of the closet already we accept you! :-)
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:50:20 -0800, rusi wrote:
On Jan 30, 9:21 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I think this is a fairly accurate description of (one aspect of) the
problem.
If you dont see it as a problem how do you explain that google can
search the
On Sunday 30 January 2011 05:21, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
If I *wanted* to index my files, I could do so, although in
fairness I'm not aware of any Linux tools which do this -- I know of
`locate`, which indexes file *names* but not content, and `grep`, which
searches file content but doesn't
On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 21:17 -0800, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
My thesis is that we can do even better than that by adding
direct links from the docs to the relevant code with nice
syntax highlighting.
+1 - I think the source links are very useful (and thanks for pushing
them).
However I think
On Jan 30, 2:53 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
In fact, Google
themselves offer a desktop app that does just that:
http://desktop.google.com/features.html
Yes, but at the expense of your privacy! How much private information
is being sent back to Google plex
On Jan 30, 6:19 pm, David Boddie da...@boddie.org.uk wrote:
You might find this page useful:
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Comparison_of_desktop_search_software
David
Thanks for that link David
I note particularly the disclaimer that it was removed from wikipedia
[Like when
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
I hoping a new trend will start with dev's putting direct
source code links in their documentation:
http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
I'm looking for more examples of projects that
Clojure a source that shows the source of a function (doh!).
It's probably easy to implement in Python with the inspect module. Sadly this
won't work for built-ins.
Clojure's irc clojurebot will answer source function with a link to github
that points to the first line of definition.
--
On Jan 29, 3:22 am, TP wing...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
I hoping a new trend will start with dev's putting direct
source code links in their documentation:
http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
rusi rustompm...@gmail.com writes:
On Jan 29, 4:10 am, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I have a quibble with the framing:
The rest of the blame lies with installers. They all treat
human-readable scripts like they were binaries and tuck the code
away in a dark corner.
On Jan 30, 2:22 am, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
The “problem”, which I don't consider to be a problem per se, is one of
OS-wide policy, not “installers”. The policy is a matter of tradeoffs
across the system, and isn't “tucking the code away in a dark corner”.
Earlier mail:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:59:33 -0800, rusi wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:22 am, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
The “problem”, which I don't consider to be a problem per se, is one of
OS-wide policy, not “installers”. The policy is a matter of tradeoffs
across the system, and isn't “tucking
On Jan 30, 9:21 am, Steven D'Aprano steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I think this is a fairly accurate description of (one aspect of) the
problem.
If you dont see it as a problem how do you explain that google can
search the World Wide Web better than we can search our
On Jan 28, 3:10 pm, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com writes:
The rest of the blame lies with installers. They all treat
human-readable scripts like they were binaries and tuck the code away
in a dark corner.
That’s hardly a “blame” of
I hoping a new trend will start with dev's putting direct
source code links in their documentation:
http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
I'm looking for more examples of projects that routinely
link their docs back into relavant sections of code.
Have any of you all
2011/1/28 Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com:
I hoping a new trend will start with dev's putting direct
source code links in their documentation:
http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
I'm looking for more examples of projects that routinely
link their docs back
Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com writes:
http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
I'm looking for more examples of projects that routinely
link their docs back into relavant sections of code.
Have any of you all seen other examples besides
the Go language docs and
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
Have any of you all seen other examples besides
the Go language docs and the Python docs?
Wasn't doxygen developed with that in mind?
Rui Maciel
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com writes:
I hoping a new trend will start with dev's putting direct
source code links in their documentation:
http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
That's a good article overall.
I have a quibble with the framing:
The rest of the
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Raymond Hettinger pyt...@rcn.com wrote:
I hoping a new trend will start with dev's putting direct
source code links in their documentation:
http://rhettinger.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/open-your-source-more/
I'm looking for more examples of projects that
Jack Diederich jackd...@gmail.com writes:
I think you overestimate how common it used to be to carry around the
sourcecode for the software you use compared to now; In the past it
wasn't even always possible - if the Sun cc compiler core dumps you
have no recourse to code.
Note that Raymond
[Jack Diedrich]
I think you overestimate how common it used to be to carry around the
sourcecode for the software you use compared to now; In the past it
wasn't even always possible - if the Sun cc compiler core dumps you
have no recourse to code.
You're right of course. For the Python
On Jan 29, 4:10 am, Ben Finney ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Note that Raymond is speaking specifically in the context of free
software, where the license is by definition permitting free
redistribution of the source code.
It is an obvious necessary condition that for code to be opened it
36 matches
Mail list logo
