On Jul 2, 6:38 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> It takes work to suit your API to a different language. Let's take GNU
> Aspell as an example; [...] Should the Aspell team offer bindings for every
> known language? In your post, you recommend supporting a minimum of
> three. Which three? Why?
No. Aspell should offer bindings for THE "Unity API" and the
respective "abstraction communities" are then responsible for
maintaining a plugin for their "abstraction" into THE Unity API.
> I'm a great fan of an obscure language named Pike. Do I expect Aspell
> to be available for Pike?
You should expect this. However if it is not available you cannot
blame Aspell for that! No, you MUST blame the pike community.
But first we have to blame EVERYONE because the unity API does not
exist... not yet! Or at least the mindset for it does not exists.
> No, and I wouldn't even if your
> three-language rule were followed.
My rule is for "unlimited unity" not "limited numbers".
> So how can I implement a
> spellchecker in my code? By writing glue. I'll write a module that
> exposes the C++ API to Pike. (This is actually a real example. I ended
> up writing my aspell hook to run as a separate process for isolation's
> sake, but it comes to the same thing.)
Yeah and they have a name for that... "reinventing the wheel". An end
user should NEVER EVER have to write glue code so their "abstraction
of choice" can be used to to script an API. That's like expecting
automobile drivers to build a car from a hunk of iron ore every time!
No, we have car manufactures who specialize in building cars. However
the respective programming language communities are all oblivious to
the greater picture. An iteration is an iteration whether you use the
"for x in iterable: x.blah()" or the "iterable.each{|x| x.blah}" or
WHATEVER syntax you choose to use. It all boils down to the same 1's
and 0's. Can't you see how our own sense of selfish pride is defeating
productivity and discovery? Can't you see?
It's fine to speak French, or Japanese, or English if you want. But
eventually we will need a unifying natural language and likewise a
unifying programming language.
[Note to community] Actually from now on i want everyone to stop using
the words programming and language together. Instead of "X programming
language" i want to you say "X abstraction layer".
Python programming language --> Python abstraction layer.
Ruby programming language --> Ruby abstraction layer.
X programming language --> X abstraction layer.
You see, we constantly refer to languages as tools, and this mindset
is lunacy! All languages compile to 1's and 0's. Languages are not
TOOLS they are all ABSTRACTIONS of a single virtual tool AND THAT TOOL
IS SOFTWARE!). So stop brainwashing yourselves and others with these
foolish descriptors! Begin to focus your mind on unity and
standardization. Then and only then can we combine our singular minds
into the hive mind.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
