> 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 abo
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 Pyth
On Feb 5, 12:11 am, "OKB (not okblacke)"
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
> defined as "doing it this way
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 e
On Feb 4, 9:34 pm, rusi 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=0B3gsacOF56PxOWUxZTVmOTQtYWIxNy00ZGFjLWEwODUtZDVkM2MyZGI5ZmRk&hl=en
--
http://mail.python
On Feb 2, 12:32 am, "OKB (not okblacke)"
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
> > isn't going to help them un
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
On 1/31/11 10:38 PM, rantingrick wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:25 am, rusi 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! :-)
First tonight,
On Feb 1, 12:25 am, rusi 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! :-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The following, meant for this thread, went to another my mistake :-)
--
On Feb 1, 1:35 am, 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 is
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
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 o
On Jan 30, 10:50 am, rusi wrote:
> I note particularly the disclaimer that it was removed from wikipedia
> [Like when censors stuff you know it
> deserves a second look ;-) ]
Oh you mean that channel that *claims* to provide a specific type of
"programming" however they really provide *anything
On Jan 30, 6:47 am, Tim Wintle 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 language.
> (2) CS
On Jan 30, 6:19 pm, David Boddie 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 censors stuff you know it
On Jan 30, 2:53 am, Steven D'Aprano 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 an used to flash more click ads a
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 thin
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, 29 Jan 2011 20:50:20 -0800, rusi wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:21 am, Steven D'Aprano +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
>> > sea
On Jan 28, 3:10 pm, Ben Finney wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger 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 installers. The modules are placed in suc
On Jan 30, 9:21 am, Steven D'Aprano 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 individual hard
> > disks?
>
> I fai
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:59:33 -0800, rusi wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:22 am, Ben Finney 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
On Jan 30, 2:22 am, Ben Finney 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:
> If you want to blame
rusi writes:
> On Jan 29, 4:10 am, Ben Finney 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.
>
> Consider this example:
> The em
On Jan 29, 3:22 am, TP wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Raymond Hettinger 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 mor
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 " with a link to github
that points to the first line of definition.
--
http://mail
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Raymond Hettinger 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 routinely
> l
On Jan 29, 4:10 am, Ben Finney 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
should be open (source)
[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 w
Jack Diederich 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 is speaking sp
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Raymond Hettinger 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 routinely
> li
Raymond Hettinger 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 blame lie
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 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 the Python
2011/1/28 Raymond Hettinger :
> 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 relav
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
