On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Francesco Biscani wrote:
>> That would be difficult to substantiate I think.
>
>
> If you look at languages with "true" multithreading, what they provide are
> not only the basic building blocks which Python also has (threads, locks,
> mutexes, condition variables,
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Francesco Biscani
wrote:
>> That would be difficult to substantiate I think.
>
>
> If you look at languages with "true" multithreading, what they provide are
> not only the basic building blocks which Python also has (threads, locks,
> mutexes, condition variables
>
> That would be difficult to substantiate I think.
>
If you look at languages with "true" multithreading, what they provide are
not only the basic building blocks which Python also has (threads, locks,
mutexes, condition variables, etc.), but also a whole conceptual model of
how a multi-threaded
Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-07-25 18:01, Volker Braun wrote:
>> A language that did not change in the last 20 years is dead, plain and
>> simple.
>
> I totally agree with this. Backwards compatibility is good to have, but
> it doesn't stand above everything else. A good example that comes to m
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Francesco Biscani
wrote:
> On 25 July 2016 at 17:21, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> The GIL is an implementation detail and has nothing to do with the
>> language. It could (in principle) be removed at any time without
>> breaking existing code, and does not exist in ot
On 2016-07-25 22:28, Francesco Biscani wrote:
Fair enough. At the same time though I do believe that the existence of
the GIL in the most widespread Python implementation has effectively
dragged back the language as a whole in terms of parallel programming.
This is getting off-topic, but I thin
On 2016-07-25 18:01, Volker Braun wrote:
A language that did not change in the last 20 years is dead, plain and
simple.
I totally agree with this. Backwards compatibility is good to have, but
it doesn't stand above everything else. A good example that comes to my
mind is LaTeX: packages const
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, rjf wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:01:47 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>> A language that did not change in the last 20 years is dead, plain and
>> simple.
> [...] Just wondering if, at the
> outset, one would
> again choose Python, knowing that there woul
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:01:47 AM UTC-7, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> A language that did not change in the last 20 years is dead, plain and
> simple.
>
I see relatively little problem with languages that grow by accretion of
libraries,
though there are conflicts when (for example) two differe
On 25 July 2016 at 17:21, Erik Bray wrote:
> The GIL is an implementation detail and has nothing to do with the
> language. It could (in principle) be removed at any time without
> breaking existing code, and does not exist in other implementations.
Fair enough. At the same time though I do be
A language that did not change in the last 20 years is dead, plain and
simple.
Lets just look at strings, which is also one of the reasons driving the
breaking change between Python 2 and 3. Back in the 90's it was ok to just
take them as arrays of C chars. But nowadays you'd be totally crazy t
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Francesco Biscani wrote:
> It does not have to be a black and white matter. C++11 is not 100%
> compatible with C++03, for instance, but the transition in practice has been
> widely painless and successful (to the point that many prominent projects
> today *require
It does not have to be a black and white matter. C++11 is not 100%
compatible with C++03, for instance, but the transition in practice has
been widely painless and successful (to the point that many prominent
projects today *require* C++11).
While I personally use and enjoy Python 3, I've heard a
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 6:07 AM, rjf wrote:
> Maybe flamebait .. see below.
>
> The decision was made to use Python ( 1?) for whatever reasons
> were articulated at the time.
>
> Apparently there is an issue with backward compatibility
> requiring rewriting of code. I don't know this first hand.
>
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:54:17 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
>>
>> I found this
>> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/pyporting.html
>> Which says that, in spite of various tools, you might have to rewrite code
>> "manually".
>>
>> If you write
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:54:17 PM UTC+1, rjf wrote:
>
> I found this
> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/pyporting.html
> Which says that, in spite of various tools, you might have to rewrite code
> "manually".
>
> If you write code in Python 2.x and it has to be changed to run in Python
> 2
I found this
https://docs.python.org/3/howto/pyporting.html
Which says that, in spite of various tools, you might have to rewrite code
"manually".
If you write code in Python 2.x and it has to be changed to run in Python
2.y and then
again in Python 3, then that counts as a bad mark against Pyt
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:07 PM, rjf wrote:
> Maybe flamebait .. see below.
No -- it seems that you might be a little ignorant about the culture
and development of Python. You might try a google search for
python2 python3
--
William (http://wstein.org)
--
You received this message be
Maybe flamebait .. see below.
The decision was made to use Python ( 1?) for whatever reasons
were articulated at the time.
Apparently there is an issue with backward compatibility
requiring rewriting of code. I don't know this first hand.
A more-or-less formal language definition
for the languag
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 5:22 PM, rjf wrote:
> And then, in a few years Python 4?
> Perhaps there is a lesson here?
Are don't understand what you're saying. Is this flame bait? I can't tell.
William
--
William (http://wstein.org)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to th
And then, in a few years Python 4?
Perhaps there is a lesson here?
RJF
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 6:33:36 AM UTC-7, William wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We recently did a survey with a question about why people choose (or
> would choose) something else instead of Sage. There are definitely
> some peop
21 matches
Mail list logo
