Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Thursday 30 July 2009 03:09:14 greg wrote: Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: And if code is data, where is Pythons ALTER statement? class Duck: def quack(self): print Quack! def moo(): print Moo! def ALTER(obj, name, TO_PROCEED_TO): setattr(obj, name, TO_PROCEED_TO) d = Duck() ALTER(d, 'quack', TO_PROCEED_TO = moo) d.quack() Nice, and I really appreciate the Duck, but (there is always a but): 1) That is a function, not a statement. 2) The original changed a jump target address from one address to another, and did not need the heavy machinery of object oriented code. So what you are doing is not quite the same. It is actually not really needed in python, as one can pass functions around, so that you can call different things instead of jumping to them: thing_to_call = moo thing_to_call() Does the equivalent without user level OO. The original ALTER statement found use in building fast state machines, where the next thing to do was set up by the current state. In python one simply returns the next state. The equivalent python code is easier to read as it is obvious what is happening - The COBOL source was more obscure, as any jump could have been altered, and you could not see that until you have read further on in the program, where the ALTER statement was. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: The COBOL source was more obscure, as any jump could have been altered, and you could not see that until you have read further on in the program, where the ALTER statement was. Well, in Python you can pretty much replace any function with any other function, so you can obfuscate things just as much if you really want! -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 17:11:02 MRAB wrote: If you were a COBOL programmer, would you want to shout about it? :-) Hey don't knock it! - at the time, it was either COBOL or FORTRAN or some assembler or coding in hex or octal. And if code is data, where is Pythons ALTER statement? *Ducks* :-)Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: And if code is data, where is Pythons ALTER statement? class Duck: def quack(self): print Quack! def moo(): print Moo! def ALTER(obj, name, TO_PROCEED_TO): setattr(obj, name, TO_PROCEED_TO) d = Duck() ALTER(d, 'quack', TO_PROCEED_TO = moo) d.quack() -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Monday 27 July 2009 16:49:25 Aahz wrote: In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? :-P (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) This is true - I intended, when I started the post, to make a crack about how he knew that he was mediocre - If there were some exam or test that you have to pass or fail to be able to make the claim to mediocrity. I was imagining a sort of devil's rating scale for programmers, that could cause one to say things like: I am studying hard so that I can get my mediocre certificate, and one day I hope to reach hacker rank. And then the similarity to I am a COBOL programmer struck me, and I abandoned the ratings. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: On Monday 27 July 2009 16:49:25 Aahz wrote: In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? :-P (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) This is true - I intended, when I started the post, to make a crack about how he knew that he was mediocre - If there were some exam or test that you have to pass or fail to be able to make the claim to mediocrity. I was imagining a sort of devil's rating scale for programmers, that could cause one to say things like: I am studying hard so that I can get my mediocre certificate, and one day I hope to reach hacker rank. And then the similarity to I am a COBOL programmer struck me, and I abandoned the ratings. If you were a COBOL programmer, would you want to shout about it? :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Xah Lee wrote: PHP is functional. PHP is functional, as in it functions!. PHP is not functional, as in it ain't functions! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:11:02 +0100, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote: Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: On Monday 27 July 2009 16:49:25 Aahz wrote: In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? :-P (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) This is true - I intended, when I started the post, to make a crack about how he knew that he was mediocre - If there were some exam or test that you have to pass or fail to be able to make the claim to mediocrity. I was imagining a sort of devil's rating scale for programmers, that could cause one to say things like: I am studying hard so that I can get my mediocre certificate, and one day I hope to reach hacker rank. And then the similarity to I am a COBOL programmer struck me, and I abandoned the ratings. If you were a COBOL programmer, would you want to shout about it? :-) The last time I wrote anything in COBOL was sometime in the early 80s. Somehow that makes me feel good, heh. ciao, f -- “Using words to describe magic is like using a screwdriver to cut roast beef.” -- Tom Robbins -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
magicus wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:11:02 +0100, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote: Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: On Monday 27 July 2009 16:49:25 Aahz wrote: In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? :-P (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) This is true - I intended, when I started the post, to make a crack about how he knew that he was mediocre - If there were some exam or test that you have to pass or fail to be able to make the claim to mediocrity. I was imagining a sort of devil's rating scale for programmers, that could cause one to say things like: I am studying hard so that I can get my mediocre certificate, and one day I hope to reach hacker rank. And then the similarity to I am a COBOL programmer struck me, and I abandoned the ratings. If you were a COBOL programmer, would you want to shout about it? :-) The last time I wrote anything in COBOL was sometime in the early 80s. Somehow that makes me feel good, heh. COBOL: it feels good when you stop. :-) (I was actually referring to the convention of all capitals representing shouting.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:22:29 +0100, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote: magicus wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:11:02 +0100, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote: Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: On Monday 27 July 2009 16:49:25 Aahz wrote: In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? :-P (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) This is true - I intended, when I started the post, to make a crack about how he knew that he was mediocre - If there were some exam or test that you have to pass or fail to be able to make the claim to mediocrity. I was imagining a sort of devil's rating scale for programmers, that could cause one to say things like: I am studying hard so that I can get my mediocre certificate, and one day I hope to reach hacker rank. And then the similarity to I am a COBOL programmer struck me, and I abandoned the ratings. If you were a COBOL programmer, would you want to shout about it? :-) The last time I wrote anything in COBOL was sometime in the early 80s. Somehow that makes me feel good, heh. COBOL: it feels good when you stop. :-) It certainly does! (I was actually referring to the convention of all capitals representing shouting.) I rarely shout and I thought that to this day it was still referred to as COBOL. I am still glad that I never pursued a career in dealing w/ such a language. ciao, f -- What you resist, persists. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
So do all these OSes have some kind of __mega_unifying_poll system call that works for anything that might possibly block, that you can exploit from a user process? On Linux at least, the select/poll/epoll is that system, the trick is to use eventfd, timerfd and signalfd which are Linux specific system calls. I think that covers everything needed. (eventfd is used for semaphores) -- дамјан ( http://softver.org.mk/damjan/ ) Give me the knowledge to change the code I do not accept, the wisdom not to accept the code I cannot change, and the freedom to choose my preference. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 7/26/09, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote: David Robinow wrote: This doesn't mean they're on the same level - in fact, if you read carefully you'll see my original post said as much: python attracted average programmers; php attracted mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers, which means that php is clearly a lesser language than python. I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? If you're a mediocre programmer who knows you're mediocre, but wants to improve and is willing to learn, then stick with Python. You'll get better. :-) I doubt it. I remember when Guido moved to the U.S. and I've even used stdwin. I've actually gotten worse over the years. Old age does that. Nevertheless, I question the idea that a language that is easy to use (I don't know if PHP qualifies) is somehow inferior. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? :-P (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Many customs in this life persist because they ease friction and promote productivity as a result of universal agreement, and whether they are precisely the optimal choices is much less important. --Henry Spencer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Aahz wrote: In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? :-P (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) LOL ... I'm an American and that wasn't all that clear :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Aahza...@pythoncraft.com wrote: In article mailman.3765.1248685391.8015.python-l...@python.org, Hendrik van Rooyen hend...@microcorp.co.za wrote: On Sunday 26 July 2009 21:26:46 David Robinow wrote: I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? I have searched, but I can find nothing about this mediocre language. Could you tell us more? (For anyone who is confused by Hendrik's humor, he is saying that David was referring to a programming language named mediocre. English grammar is confusing!) Well, Aahz, I think it rather rude to spoil the fun with your explanation. Just for that, I'm not going to post any mediocre code. You'll have to figure it out yourself. (Q: should the name of my favorite language be capitalized?) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
In article h4gnmr$8c...@news.eternal-september.org, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2009-07-25 00:55:26 -0400, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com said: But please don't put it on the same level as PHP. Their situations have almost nothing in common. Their situations have much in common; Python attracted programmers away from (for example) C++, becuse python is easier to master; Then php came along and attracted programmers away from (for example) python, because php is easier to master. No, Python attracted programmers away from C++ because it's easier to write good programs in it, in less time. There are plenty of expert C++ programmers who switched to Python; your thesis only applies to the legions of people who found it difficult to learn C++ in the first place. Moreover, AFAIK PHP never attracted people away from Python; Python was not particularly popular when PHP was in its heyday. PHP attracted people away from Perl and Java and C++. I'm curious, do you actually know Python at all? Have you used it for a serious project? -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ At Resolver we've found it useful to short-circuit any doubt and just refer to comments in code as 'lies'. :-) --Michael Foord paraphrases Christian Muirhead on python-dev, 2009-03-22 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-26 09:16:39 -0400, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) said: There are plenty of expert C++ programmers who switched to Python; plenty is an absolute term, not a relative term. I sincerely doubt that the majority of python users were formerly *expert* C++ programmers. your thesis only applies to the legions of people who found it difficult to learn C++ in the first place. No, my thesis applies to the overwhelming majority of programmers who found it more difficult to *master* (i.e., not merely use) C++ as opposed to mastering python. BTW, this is a *complement* not a dis; python is a better language than C++ precisely because it is more sensibly and elegantly designed than C++ and therefore easier to master. php represents the same process but farther down the ladder, as it were. There's often a tradeoff between ease of mastery and power. python hits a sweet spot for many tasks and many programmers, especially as compared to C++ (or even lisp, which though more powerful than python is more difficult to master. lisp beats C++ on both counts imho - more powerful *and* easier to master). php hits a sweet spot only in a very restricted domain. Beyond that, it is clearly inferior to python which has greater power, but is more difficult to master. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
This doesn't mean they're on the same level - in fact, if you read carefully you'll see my original post said as much: python attracted average programmers; php attracted mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers, which means that php is clearly a lesser language than python. I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
David Robinow wrote: This doesn't mean they're on the same level - in fact, if you read carefully you'll see my original post said as much: python attracted average programmers; php attracted mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers, which means that php is clearly a lesser language than python. I'm a mediocre programmer. Does this mean I should switch to PHP? If you're a mediocre programmer who knows you're mediocre, but wants to improve and is willing to learn, then stick with Python. You'll get better. :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
In article h4gnmr$8c...@news.eternal-september.org, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: php is clearly a lesser language than python. I'm as much of a Python bigot as anybody. Likewise, I put down php for all the sorts of theoretical reasons people have been putting it down. Not to mention that it looks like Perl, which is enough to make anybody go screaming in the other direction. However, it's hard to argue with success. A ton of very useful software has been written in php (including MediaWiki, which drives Wikipedia). One needs to have a very highly developed sense of theoretical purity to look down their noses at the language that drives one of the highest volume web sites on the planet. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-26 17:04:23 -0400, Roy Smith r...@panix.com said: One needs to have a very highly developed sense of theoretical purity to look down their noses at the language that drives one of the highest volume web sites on the planet. It's nothing to do with theoretical purity and everything to do with practicality. php has a limited range of utility. Within that range, it's clearly quite useful. Python is useful for a greater range of tasks which makes it a more generally useful (and in this sense, better) language. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:31:06 +0100, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2009-07-26 09:16:39 -0400, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) said: There are plenty of expert C++ programmers who switched to Python; plenty is an absolute term, not a relative term. I sincerely doubt that the majority of python users were formerly *expert* C++ programmers. Nitpicking like this doesn't help your case. your thesis only applies to the legions of people who found it difficult to learn C++ in the first place. No, my thesis applies to the overwhelming majority of programmers who found it more difficult to *master* (i.e., not merely use) C++ as opposed to mastering python. BTW, this is a *complement* not a dis; python is a better language than C++ precisely because it is more sensibly and elegantly designed than C++ and therefore easier to master. It is perhaps more accurate to say that Python was designed where C++ aggregated. C was fundamentally the wrong place to have started from, making C++ (as distinct from the subset of C++ that is really C) harder to learn, never mind master, than it really needed to be. php represents the same process but farther down the ladder, as it were. There's often a tradeoff between ease of mastery and power. python hits a sweet spot for many tasks and many programmers, especially as compared to C++ (or even lisp, which though more powerful than python is more difficult to master. lisp beats C++ on both counts imho - more powerful *and* easier to master). php hits a sweet spot only in a very restricted domain. Beyond that, it is clearly inferior to python which has greater power, but is more difficult to master. Fundamentally incorrect. PHP attracted many people because of where it lives in the web application structure -- the part of the language that was thought about very hard. Beyond that there's nothing much to master, so the whole ease vs power debate is rather pointless. -- Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:31:06 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote: On 2009-07-26 09:16:39 -0400, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) said: There are plenty of expert C++ programmers who switched to Python; plenty is an absolute term, not a relative term. I sincerely doubt that the majority of python users were formerly *expert* C++ programmers. your thesis only applies to the legions of people who found it difficult to learn C++ in the first place. No, my thesis applies to the overwhelming majority of programmers who found it more difficult to *master* (i.e., not merely use) C++ as opposed to mastering python. BTW, this is a *complement* not a dis; python is a better language than C++ precisely because it is more sensibly and elegantly designed than C++ and therefore easier to master. Isn't it widely accepted that the number of people who have mastered C++ is about five? All of the rest of us just struggle... [I know enough of C++ to avoid it whenever I can, and to not use it for my own projects. I'm happy with a mix of C, python and lisp(or scheme).] -- Andrew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
PHP is popular because it is geared for the server-side web scripting lang, and simpler and easy to use, than popular free alternatives at the time (such as Perl and Java's JSP). Python became popular primarily because its ease-to-read syntax. Btween the two, PHP is much easier to use, and much a pleasure to program in. Python is a pain in the ass. PHP is functional. The language is not elegant, lots of inconsistancies. However, it's a joy to use for any practical task in its web scripting field. PHP has one of the best documentation among open source computer languages, i'd say top 5. Python is a twist, with half-assed lambda, a culty community thinking computer science R us, and it has this OOP obsession. The Guido guy do not understand functional programing, but has the pleasure to actitively badmouth it. References: • Language, Purity, Cult, and Deception http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lang_purity_cult_deception.html • What Languages to Hate http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/language_to_hate.html • Lambda in Python 3000 http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_3000.html • Python Documentation Problems http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_doc_index.html • Examples Of Quality Documentation In The Computing Industry http://xahlee.org/perl-python/quality_docs.html • Xah's Perl and Python Tutorial http://xahlee.org/perl-python/index.html • Xah's PHP Tutorial http://xahlee.org/php/index.html Xah ∑ http://xahlee.org/ ☄ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 24, 11:58 pm, ACL anonymous.c.lis...@gmail.com wrote: I actually think that the thing holding lisp back is 'bus factor'. Lets assume I have a java project and a lisp project: Java project: I have maybe 10 or 12 people on my team working on various subsystems of my project. There are probably one or two 'technical leader' types in the group, and a bunch of others who are sort of 'serfs', banging out java classes. Lets say one of my important guys gets totally splattered by a bus... I've still got another one left! I can rely on the other guy to keep things afloat while I train up a new leader type. Lisp project: I don't need as many people. I have 3 or 4 people, and one person is my technical leader and lisp guru. Guru is probably in charge of more difficult macros and (because of that), also in charge of the overall design (macros are design patterns embodied in code). Lets say he gets totally annihilated by the bus. What do I do now? I had all my eggs in one basket and my project is now stalled. A Clojure programmer mentioned interesting solutions to this used by his company, such as partnerships with similarly Agile companies. http://programmingtour.blogspot.com/2009/07/conversation-with-stuart-halloway.html I agree that the bus factor -- as well as some other problems -- works against Lisp's acceptance. All the best, Tayssir -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
ACL wrote: Lisp project: I don't need as many people... Is there any actual evidence of that? -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 24, 11:54 pm, Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com wrote: [snip] References: • Language, Purity, Cult, and Deception http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/lang_purity_cult_deception.html • What Languages to Hate http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/language_to_hate.html • Lambda in Python 3000 http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_3000.html • Python Documentation Problems http://xahlee.org/perl-python/python_doc_index.html • Examples Of Quality Documentation In The Computing Industry http://xahlee.org/perl-python/quality_docs.html • Xah's Perl and Python Tutorial http://xahlee.org/perl-python/index.html • Xah's PHP Tutorial http://xahlee.org/php/index.html Xah ∑http://xahlee.org/ Wow, you leave no stone unturned. computer science R us I'm stealing this. Carl BAnks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-25 00:55:26 -0400, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com said: But please don't put it on the same level as PHP. Their situations have almost nothing in common. Their situations have much in common; Python attracted programmers away from (for example) C++, becuse python is easier to master; Then php came along and attracted programmers away from (for example) python, because php is easier to master. This doesn't mean they're on the same level - in fact, if you read carefully you'll see my original post said as much: python attracted average programmers; php attracted mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers, which means that php is clearly a lesser language than python. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-23 13:15:00 -0400, Isaac Gouy igo...@yahoo.com said: I get the feeling I'm missing the joke? Yes, you are missing the joke. The point is that if python is 60x slower than C, even if there were not a GIL, it would require running the python program on a 60 core machine just reach parity with C. The existence of the GIL means that in reality you'd probably need a several hundred core machine running python just to equal what C can do on one core. Hence the 13375p34k pseudo quote - teh slowness on all ur cores! -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-23 23:51:02 -0400, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com said: On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com wrote: fft1976 wrote: How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. Probably due to similar reasons that lead php to become remotely relevant . Well, the only reason PHP became relevant because it was an easy (emphasis added) to deploy solution in a single application domain, the web, that happened to explode. i.e., Python beat lisp because it is ~70% of lisp in a form that is much more palatable to the average programmer, just as php became popular because it is powerful enough to do websites and, most importantly, apprehensible to mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 24, 2:06 pm, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2009-07-23 23:51:02 -0400, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com said: On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com wrote: fft1976 wrote: How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. Probably due to similar reasons that lead php to become remotely relevant . Well, the only reason PHP became relevant because it was an easy (emphasis added) to deploy solution in a single application domain, the web, that happened to explode. i.e., Python beat lisp because it is ~70% of lisp in a form that is much more palatable to the average programmer, just as php became popular because it is powerful enough to do websites and, most importantly, apprehensible to mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers. -- Raffael Cavallaro I actually think that the thing holding lisp back is 'bus factor'. Lets assume I have a java project and a lisp project: Java project: I have maybe 10 or 12 people on my team working on various subsystems of my project. There are probably one or two 'technical leader' types in the group, and a bunch of others who are sort of 'serfs', banging out java classes. Lets say one of my important guys gets totally splattered by a bus... I've still got another one left! I can rely on the other guy to keep things afloat while I train up a new leader type. Lisp project: I don't need as many people. I have 3 or 4 people, and one person is my technical leader and lisp guru. Guru is probably in charge of more difficult macros and (because of that), also in charge of the overall design (macros are design patterns embodied in code). Lets say he gets totally annihilated by the bus. What do I do now? I had all my eggs in one basket and my project is now stalled. I think that (for example) when people are saying that lisp macros make projects difficult to understand, or that lisp hackers are much harder to find than other programmers, what they are really showing is that because of the nature of the language, lisp projects get organized in a different way. This different way of organization is especially hard on corporate projects, because managers are expected to plan for when some important guy drops dead. The problem with lisp is that if you hire too many extra hackers, you end up with a bunch of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs. This may also explain why it gets touted as an academic language. In academia if a professor who is leading some important research drops dead, who cares? Most likely no one had interest as to whether the university would make a profit on this particular research endeavor (except maybe the deceased, as he would like to get grant funding). So I guess then we can give some tips for making lisp more acceptable for 'paying gigs'. 1.) If you are a lisp hacker, it is your duty to be lazier and write less code. We need to make it so that these projects need sizable teams of people to complete. 2.) Write down everything that you do, everything you are going to do. Maybe draw some object diagrams of your important/fancy macros, make sure these are stored with the source. (You'll note that an iterative approach to programming isn't really conducive to making a lot of diagrams of stuff...) I don't know what this has to do with python or scheme or people dumping scheme for python. Honestly, I seriously doubt that any undergraduate programming course will give you enough actual programming experience to make you seriously proficient in the language (research projects not counted). The language used to teach the material is a cursory detail. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 24, 11:06 am, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2009-07-23 23:51:02 -0400, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com said: On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Rui Maciel rui.mac...@gmail.com wrote: fft1976 wrote: How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. Probably due to similar reasons that lead php to become remotely relevant . Well, the only reason PHP became relevant because it was an easy (emphasis added) to deploy solution in a single application domain, the web, that happened to explode. i.e., Python beat lisp because it is ~70% of lisp in a form that is much more palatable to the average programmer, just as php became popular because it is powerful enough to do websites and, most importantly, apprehensible to mediocre programmers and even some non-programmers. That the two languages made something easier is the beginning and end of the similarities between them. PHP made hacking together a security-hole-ridden website easier. Python made actual programming easier. PHP became what it is because it rode on the coattails of a technology that grew in spite of it (kind of like everything Microsoft has shipped since Windows 3.1). Python became what it is because it earned the respect of programmers, who contributed to it and spread the word about it. That it is easy to use is only a part of why it earned that respect. Two languages could not have come to prominence by more different means. I can handle Python being called inferior to Lisp or a language for stupid people or a single-core-using dinosaur of a language or worse than Perl. But please don't put it on the same level as PHP. Their situations have almost nothing in common. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:17:52 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: So do all these OSes have some kind of __mega_unifying_poll system call that works for anything that might possibly block, that you can exploit from a user process? Threads ;) They also have the advantage that one thread can run while another is waiting on disk I/O, which isn't something which can be done with a select/poll interface (even if select/poll worked for files, it doesn't help for mapped files). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 21, 10:09 pm, Raffael Cavallaro raffaelcavall...@pas.espam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com wrote: On 2009-07-21 19:06:02 -0400, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com said: Python uses native threads. So it can be teh-slowness on all ur cores! http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=nbody〈=all The global interpreter lock doesn't help much either. As you've linked to programs that /have not/ been written to use threading or multiple cores (look at the ~ CPU Load column) I get the feeling I'm missing the joke? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Perhaps like Xah Lee I find, after many years of Lisp programming, these discussions increasingly frustrating and even, in some sense, amazing. We can speculate all we want about syntax and semantics of programing languages. What counts in the end are really the PRAGMATICS of programming languages. How can I do something with a language that is USEFUL to me? Will the result be good looking, and snappy or some ugly, dated looking, crashing application? For instance, last time I played with Scheme (drScheme) to explore some OpenGL 3D issue I was not impressed at all. One can debate the syntax and semantics of Scheme but in that particular instance all that was important to me was the fact that the Scheme example performed terrible and the threading fell completely apart when running more that a single OpenGL window. Perhaps this was coded poorly but I don't care. Scheme left a pretty bad impression. alex Prof. Alexander Repenning University of Colorado Computer Science Department Boulder, CO 80309-430 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
game_designer alex.repenn...@gmail.com writes: Perhaps like Xah Lee I find, after many years of Lisp programming, these discussions increasingly frustrating and even, in some sense, amazing. We can speculate all we want about syntax and semantics of programing languages. What counts in the end are really the PRAGMATICS of programming languages. How can I do something with a language that is USEFUL to me? Will the result be good looking, and snappy or some ugly, dated looking, crashing application? For instance, last time I played with Scheme (drScheme) to explore some OpenGL 3D issue I was not impressed at all. One can debate the syntax and semantics of Scheme but in that particular instance all that was important to me was the fact that the Scheme example performed terrible and the threading fell completely apart when running more that a single OpenGL window. Perhaps this was coded poorly but I don't care. Scheme left a pretty bad impression. One implementation of one dialect of Lisp worked poorly for one particular project some unspecified number of years ago, judging by code (written by you, no less) that may or may not have been terrible? I appreciate that this was a frustrating experience, but I don't see what lesson about Lisp programming we're supposed to be getting from this. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Raffael Cavallaro wrote: Yes, you are missing the joke. The point is that if python is 60x slower than C, even if there were not a GIL, it would require running the python program on a 60 core machine just reach parity with C. The existence of the GIL means that in reality you'd probably need a several hundred core machine... No, OCaml is in the same boat as Python. Spawning a parallel work item takes 20,000x longer in OCaml than in F#. Gathering the results is asymptotically slower in general. Consequently, for most problems, Python or OCaml running on an infinite number of cores cannot beat F# running on 2 or more (and I already have 8) because the overheads are far too high for parallelism to pay off. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Nobody nob...@nowhere.com writes: They also have the advantage that one thread can run while another is waiting on disk I/O, which isn't something which can be done with a select/poll interface (even if select/poll worked for files, it doesn't help for mapped files). AIO can help with this, but I don't know any language runtimes that use it right now. Really, this (and the similar issue of ram cache misses) is basically why hardware hyperthreading exists too. To get processor parallelism you do have to use OS threads, but green threads are lighter weight and switch faster, so you want to use a combination of both. Basically, use about as many OS threads as you have hardware threads (i.e. CPU cores or hyperthreads), and then assign green threads to OS threads in your application runtime. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 23, 2:37 am, Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote: On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:17:52 -0700, Carl Banks wrote: So do all these OSes have some kind of __mega_unifying_poll system call that works for anything that might possibly block, that you can exploit from a user process? Threads ;) Yeah, well that was kind of my point, you'd need native threads to do some of this. Jean-Paul Calderone seemed to be suggesting that it was possible to wait for events on sockets, pipes, and IPC semaphores at the same. I pointed out that it isn't possible with well-known I/O polling calls (like select), so there must be some other way, and I was wondering what it was. He's a proponent of Twisted, which is a major async framework, and I'd have to figure that once or twice they've encounted issues like how to poll both a semaphore and a socket at the same time, so maybe they've found a good solution to it. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
fft1976 wrote: How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. Probably due to similar reasons that lead php to become remotely relevant. Rui Maciel -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
In article urr9m.6558$ze1.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote: milanj: and all of them use native threads (python still use green threads ?) Python uses native threads. But then it adds the global interpreter lock, which completely undermines the utility of native threads. So yes, it uses native threads, but it does not actually realize the benefits of that use. rg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 22, 9:36 am, Ron Garret rnospa...@flownet.com wrote: In article urr9m.6558$ze1.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote: milanj: and all of them use native threads (python still use green threads ?) Python uses native threads. But then it adds the global interpreter lock, which completely undermines the utility of native threads. So yes, it uses native threads, but it does not actually realize the benefits of that use. Wrong. It only partially undermines the utility of native threads, not completely. Native threading allows some threads to run while others are blocked in a system call (as well as in a few other minor cases), which can't be done with green threads. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: Wrong. It only partially undermines the utility of native threads, not completely. Native threading allows some threads to run while others are blocked in a system call (as well as in a few other minor cases), which can't be done with green threads. Why is that such an advantage? Green threads work fine if you just organize the i/o system to never block. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 22, 10:20 am, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote: Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: Wrong. It only partially undermines the utility of native threads, not completely. Native threading allows some threads to run while others are blocked in a system call (as well as in a few other minor cases), which can't be done with green threads. Why is that such an advantage? Green threads work fine if you just organize the i/o system to never block. Because then I don't have to organize the I/O system never to block. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-22, Ron Garret rnospa...@flownet.com wrote: In article urr9m.6558$ze1.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com wrote: milanj: and all of them use native threads (python still use green threads ?) Python uses native threads. But then it adds the global interpreter lock, which completely undermines the utility of native threads. So yes, it uses native threads, but it does not actually realize the benefits of that use. Not all of the time. For library/extension calls that release the GIL, it does. -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! I was making donuts at and now I'm on a bus! visi.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 22, 12:04 pm, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote: Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: Why is that such an advantage? Green threads work fine if you just organize the i/o system to never block. Because then I don't have to organize the I/O system never to block. We're talking about what a language implementation does behind the scenes, I thought. No we're not, we are talking about the whether GIL completely or only partially undermines the use of native threads on Python. I don't think your fantasy async-only all-green-thread langauge implementation is possible anyway. How would you wait on a pipe in one thread, a socket in another, a semaphore in a third? (Are there any popular OSes that offer a unified polling interface to all possible synchronizations?) And what do you do about drivers or libraries that make underlying blocking calls? What if you have a busy calculation going on in the background? Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 22, 12:04 pm, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote: Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: Why is that such an advantage? Green threads work fine if you just organize the i/o system to never block. Because then I don't have to organize the I/O system never to block. We're talking about what a language implementation does behind the scenes, I thought. No we're not, we are talking about the whether GIL completely or only partially undermines the use of native threads on Python. I don't think your fantasy async-only all-green-thread langauge implementation is possible anyway. How would you wait on a pipe in one thread, a socket in another, a semaphore in a third? (Are there any popular OSes that offer a unified polling interface to all possible synchronizations?) Every OS I can think of can support the three examples you gave here. And what do you do about drivers or libraries that make underlying blocking calls? Certainly a point to consider. What if you have a busy calculation going on in the background? What if you do? Are you suggesting this would somehow prevent I/O from being serviced? I'm not sure why, as long as the implementation pays attention to I/O events. Jean-Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 22, 1:53 pm, Jean-Paul Calderone exar...@divmod.com wrote: On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT), Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 22, 12:04 pm, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote: Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: Why is that such an advantage? Green threads work fine if you just organize the i/o system to never block. Because then I don't have to organize the I/O system never to block. We're talking about what a language implementation does behind the scenes, I thought. No we're not, we are talking about the whether GIL completely or only partially undermines the use of native threads on Python. I don't think your fantasy async-only all-green-thread langauge implementation is possible anyway. How would you wait on a pipe in one thread, a socket in another, a semaphore in a third? (Are there any popular OSes that offer a unified polling interface to all possible synchronizations?) Every OS I can think of can support the three examples you gave here. I guess you would know, but polling on all of these at once has got use more obscure calls than I'm familiar with. On Linux I can use select to wait for pipes and sockets, but not SysV semaphores AFAIK. On Windows it's well known that select only works for sockets. So do all these OSes have some kind of __mega_unifying_poll system call that works for anything that might possibly block, that you can exploit from a user process? And what do you do about drivers or libraries that make underlying blocking calls? Certainly a point to consider. What if you have a busy calculation going on in the background? What if you do? Are you suggesting this would somehow prevent I/O from being serviced? I'm not sure why, as long as the implementation pays attention to I/O events. Using native theads with blocking allows one to run a background calculation without burdening it to yield often enough to provide sufficient response times for other operations (which may or may not be convenient to do). Even if it's possible to accomplish arbitrary background processing without native threading (and it is not, because the background calculations could be performed by a library you don't control whose author didn't bother yielding at any point), you cannot reasonably claim native threads have no advantage in this case. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com writes: I don't think your fantasy async-only all-green-thread langauge implementation is possible anyway. Erlang and GHC both work like that, quite successfully: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=threadringlang=all How would you wait on a pipe in one thread, a socket in another, a semaphore in a third? You can select on pipes and sockets, I think. Not sure about semaphores. (Are there any popular OSes that offer a unified polling interface to all possible synchronizations?) And what do you do about drivers or libraries that make underlying blocking calls? What if you have a busy calculation going on in the background? I don't think the concept of drivers applies to user-mode programs. For FFI calls you would use an OS thread. The language runtime switches between busy computation threads on a timer tick. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 21 Jul., 06:57, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: Scott Burson wrote: Have you looked at ECL? http://ecls.sourceforge.net/ I've used it only a little, so I can't vouch for its stability, but it fits the threading and license requirements (well, some corporate lawyers have trouble with the LGPL, but I think it's usable). I didn't tried it myself, but looks like it is not very stable: http://www.mail-archive.com/application-buil...@lispniks.com/msg01069.html I'm not sure if it is fair to post a reference to a single post by someone without context and without having used ECL. If there are stability problems, people can report to the ECL mailing list. The maintainers are very active. Frank, I have seen you constructive and posting code a year ago. What happened? Several messages of yours I've seen here are now going in the direction of been mostly useless. I thought you could do better. If you are no longer interested in Lisp with no first hand usage, why not switch to comp.lang.misc or some other random place? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 21, 6:57 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: Scott Burson wrote: Have you looked atECL? http://ecls.sourceforge.net/ I've used it only a little, so I can't vouch for its stability, but it fits the threading and license requirements (well, some corporate lawyers have trouble with the LGPL, but I think it's usable). I didn't tried it myself, but looks like it is not very stable: http://www.mail-archive.com/application-buil...@lispniks.com/msg01069... ECL suffers from fast development problems if this is what you mean. People are advised to stay with certain releases and we announce when some ports are broken due to progress along certain lines. For instance, if I find that the generational garbage collector is needed for Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and OS X, and it works, I do not mind dropping temporarily the mingw port until the garbage collector library catches up. People who wanted to stay with mingw produced a branch (see Samium's posts) with the old garbage collector. Now this is not so dramatic. ECL now has a release cycle of ONE MONTH. If you find that this month's release does not work on your platform (and this is normally explicit in the announcement), then do not upgrade and wait one or two months until the problem is solved. OTOH, people only seem to notice problems when their petty platform is temporarily broken, but nobody seems to notice the overall stability and portability of the platform. See the list http://ecls.sourceforge.net/logs.html which will soon expand including Solaris and regular builds on Windows using the free Microsoft compiler. And once the ARM computer I have been gifted by a happy arrives, then Debian-ARM as well. Juanjo -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 19, 8:31 pm, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: Python is not that bad. Unlike Lisp, there is much less undefined behavior, there is one free unique implementation on the 3 major platforms Linux, Windows and MacOS X, which is stable, support multithreading and has a default GUI library binding, which is difficult to find for Lisp (e.g. I don't know of a free modern and stable Lisp implemenation with mulithreading support for Windows, with a licence with which you can use it in closed source commercial programs, like you can do with Python). Many problems in the Lispbuilder mailing list are related to problems due to different operating systems and Lisp implementations. Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.dehttp://www.frank-buss.de,http://www.it4-systems.de Someone should mention Clozure CL - http://trac.clozure.com/openmcl As you can see there is os x, freebsd, linux, solaris and windows port and all of them use native threads (python still use green threads ?) and development is pretty alive, they did planty of developing last year[s], ccl licence permits you to deliver closed source programs ... CCL is promising bright feature to CL since looks like the insist of building stable implementation across most arch in use today -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-21 05:37:27 -0400, milanj mil...@gmail.com said: Someone should mention Clozure CL - http://trac.clozure.com/openmcl As you can see there is os x, freebsd, linux, solaris and windows port and all of them use native threads (python still use green threads ?) and development is pretty alive, they did planty of developing last year[s], ccl licence permits you to deliver closed source programs ... CCL is promising bright feature to CL since looks like the insist of building stable implementation across most arch in use today Hear, hear! -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 19, 7:33 pm, fft1976 fft1...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: E.g. the number system: In many Lisp implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6 2 / 3 results in 0. Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now it returns 0.66, which will result in lots of fun for porting applications written for Python = 2.6. How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. Worse is better? Bobi http://www.linkedin.com/in/slobodanblazeski -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Rainer Joswig wrote: I'm not sure if it is fair to post a reference to a single post by someone without context and without having used ECL. If there are stability problems, people can report to the ECL mailing list. The maintainers are very active. This was just one example. Another one: http://www.mail-archive.com/application-buil...@lispniks.com/msg01024.html Luke and Elliott are no beginners, so it is at least difficult to use ECL: On Windows it doesn't work with MinGW and on MacOS X there was at least one case were it freezed. But as I have written, I didn't tried it myself, so this is only some second hand experience. Maybe it is all wrong setups in combination with Lispbuilder and ECL itself is stable, I don't know. But I know that it is much easier to get a full featured running Python system on Windows, MacOS X and Linux, so this is something where Lisp distributions could be improved. -- Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.de http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-19 19:31:36 +0100, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de said: (e.g. I don't know of a free modern and stable Lisp implemenation with mulithreading support for Windows, with a licence with which you can use it in closed source commercial programs, like you can do with Python). Openmcl seems reasonably stable to me, is LLGPL-licensed, and runs on these platforms and Solaris x86. It's kind of tragic, of course, that this kind of parasitic behaviour (will not consider a commercial product to use in your commercial system) has now become so common. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes: Besides, one can legitimately disagree that 2/3 = 0 is the wrong thing to do. It's the right thing to do if you're doing integer maths. True, but the question is how best to decide whether the programmer wants to do integer maths. Deciding based on the types of the operands is okay in a statically typed language. But it's asking for trouble in a dynamically-typed language, especially where it's common practice to use ints as a substitute for floats that happen to have integer values. EIBTI in this case. -- Greg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Tim Bradshaw t...@cley.com writes: On 2009-07-19 19:31:36 +0100, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de said: (e.g. I don't know of a free modern and stable Lisp implemenation with mulithreading support for Windows, with a licence with which you can use it in closed source commercial programs, like you can do with Python). Openmcl seems reasonably stable to me, is LLGPL-licensed, and runs on these platforms and Solaris x86. It's kind of tragic, of course, that this kind of parasitic behaviour (will not consider a commercial product to use in your commercial system) has now become so common. GPL. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-21 19:06:02 -0400, Neil Hodgson nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com said: Python uses native threads. So it can be teh-slowness on all ur cores! http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=nbodylang=all The global interpreter lock doesn't help much either. -- Raffael Cavallaro -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
in 121683 20090719 210126 Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote: Roy Smith wrote: In article 1cethsrrw8h6k$.9ty7j7u7zovn@40tude.net, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: there is one free unique implementation on the 3 major platforms Linux, Windows and MacOS X Most people would still consider Solaris to be a major platform. ?? I do not, but I have no idea what comes in 4th after the other three by whatever metric. I think the OP means major PC operating systems. Those with a wider knowledge of the computer world would consider IBM's mainframe operating systems to be deserving of the description major. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes: Besides, one can legitimately disagree that 2/3 = 0 is the wrong thing to do. It's the right thing to do if you're doing integer maths. I wonder whether 2/3 = ValueError is preferable. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Bob Martin wrote: I think the OP means major PC operating systems. Those with a wider knowledge of the computer world would consider IBM's mainframe operating systems to be deserving of the description major. Maybe you are right, if you mean big machines. I know mainframes a bit and there are interesting concepts, like hot-swapping of CPU modules and mainframes are very reliable. But expensive, too. I know at least one client, who wants to change it to some cheap Linux boxes, like Google demonstrates it. If you take care (e.g. Xen virtualization for easier computer changing and RAID harddisks, if a downtime of some hours might be ok), it doesn't matter if one PC goes out of order. But even on IBM mainframes you can install Linux or other Unix systems in parallel to the usual operating systems for this machines, so except for special cases, like embedded systems, the most installed and used operating systems might be Unix-like systems and Windows. But looks like Python even runs on more native operating systems for mainframes. -- Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.de http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
in 121708 20090720 072858 Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: Bob Martin wrote: I think the OP means major PC operating systems. Those with a wider knowledge of the computer world would consider IBM's mainframe operating systems to be deserving of the description major. Maybe you are right, if you mean big machines. I know mainframes a bit and there are interesting concepts, like hot-swapping of CPU modules and mainframes are very reliable. But expensive, too. I know at least one client, who wants to change it to some cheap Linux boxes, like Google demonstrates it. If you take care (e.g. Xen virtualization for easier computer changing and RAID harddisks, if a downtime of some hours might be ok), it doesn't matter if one PC goes out of order. But even on IBM mainframes you can install Linux or other Unix systems in parallel to the usual operating systems for this machines, so except for special cases, like embedded systems, the most installed and used operating systems might be Unix-like systems and Windows. But looks like Python even runs on more native operating systems for mainframes. Yes, a platform is really the combination of hardware architecture and operating system, so Linux on Intel and Linux on 390 are different platforms. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 19, 10:18 pm, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com wrote: Uh Carl ... are you familiar with the concept of mocking humor? You got me, lip hurts bad. :) Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 20, 9:13 am, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote: Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes: Besides, one can legitimately disagree that 2/3 = 0 is the wrong thing to do. It's the right thing to do if you're doing integer maths. I wonder whether 2/3 = ValueError is preferable. Not all software wants this. It shouldn't be part of the language but rather part of your code if you need such a feature. (for instance, to distinguish between 2/3 and divisions with 0 dividend). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 2009-07-20, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com wrote: In fact, picking a computer language is the most important discussion in Computer Science and eclipses even P=NP? in significance. I sure hope we can keep this thread going for a few months. Please feel free to extend this flame-war along for a few months on comp.lang.lisp. Not here. Uh Carl ... are you familiar with the concept of mocking humor? Irony on Usenet: always a bit of a gamble... -- Grant Edwards grante Yow! Vote for ME -- I'm at well-tapered, half-cocked, visi.comill-conceived and TAX-DEFERRED! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
vippstar vipps...@gmail.com writes: I wonder whether 2/3 = ValueError is preferable. Not all software wants this. It shouldn't be part of the language but rather part of your code if you need such a feature. (for instance, to distinguish between 2/3 and divisions with 0 dividend). I don't see how to implement such a thing in my code, if I believe that the ring of integers doesn't have any concept of division and so attempts to divide integers should be treated as errors. Yes of course the present / operator is useful, but I could do just as well with the divmod function which I think is more explicit. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 7/20/2009 2:13 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: Steven D'Aprano ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au writes: Besides, one can legitimately disagree that 2/3 = 0 is the wrong thing to do. It's the right thing to do if you're doing integer maths. I wonder whether 2/3 = ValueError is preferable. Not for me :( -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 20, 7:50 pm, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote: vippstar vipps...@gmail.com writes: I wonder whether 2/3 = ValueError is preferable. Not all software wants this. It shouldn't be part of the language but rather part of your code if you need such a feature. (for instance, to distinguish between 2/3 and divisions with 0 dividend). I don't see how to implement such a thing in my code, Write a function: (if ( x y) ValueError (/ x y)) This will return 0 only if the dividend = 0, not in integer division x/ y with y x, which will return ValueError. Of course, ValueError must not be an integer, because that could be the result of an integer division. If it's not possible to return multiple types, then the function can make use of some error handling mechanism. if I believe that the ring of integers doesn't have any concept of division and so attempts to divide integers should be treated as errors. Wouldn't that mean 3/2 would also evaluate to ValueError? But 3/2 = 1 in integer division, not 0, like 2/3. Regardless, it's a specialized requirement, and thus should either be implemented by the programmer or the language could provide it if it's specialized, (for instance, I wouldn't require a language to provide text manipulation features, but I expect them from perl because it's not a general all purpose language [the name designates that, however it can be used as one - like lisp]) course the present / operator is useful, but I could do just as well with the divmod function which I think is more explicit. What? Python? Aww. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 19, 11:31 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: I don't know of a free modern and stable Lisp implementation with mulithreading support for Windows, with a licence with which you can use it in closed source commercial programs Have you looked at ECL? http://ecls.sourceforge.net/ I've used it only a little, so I can't vouch for its stability, but it fits the threading and license requirements (well, some corporate lawyers have trouble with the LGPL, but I think it's usable). -- Scott -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
vippstar vipps...@gmail.com writes: I don't see how to implement such a thing in my code, Write a function: (if ( x y) ValueError (/ x y)) I meant changing the behavior of integer division in python. Wouldn't that mean 3/2 would also evaluate to ValueError? Yes, the idea was that one can take the view that integer division should not be allowed except through a 'div' function or some such. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 21, 1:22 am, Paul Rubin http://phr...@nospam.invalid wrote: vippstar vipps...@gmail.com writes: I don't see how to implement such a thing in my code, Write a function: (if ( x y) ValueError (/ x y)) I meant changing the behavior of integer division in python. You'd either have to hack an implementation or change the standard (I just noticed python doesn't have one). Wouldn't that mean 3/2 would also evaluate to ValueError? Yes, the idea was that one can take the view that integer division should not be allowed except through a 'div' function or some such. You brought up 3/2 == ValueError as a more appropriate value for the integer division to evaluate, rather than 0. I thought you meant specifically those kinds of divisions. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Scott Burson wrote: Have you looked at ECL? http://ecls.sourceforge.net/ I've used it only a little, so I can't vouch for its stability, but it fits the threading and license requirements (well, some corporate lawyers have trouble with the LGPL, but I think it's usable). I didn't tried it myself, but looks like it is not very stable: http://www.mail-archive.com/application-buil...@lispniks.com/msg01069.html -- Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.de http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
fft1976 wrote: On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: E.g. the number system: In many Lisp implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6 2 / 3 results in 0. Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now it returns 0.66, which will result in lots of fun for porting applications written for Python = 2.6. How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. It's all part of a Dutch conspiracy to take over the world! :-) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
fft1976 wrote: How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. Python is not that bad. Unlike Lisp, there is much less undefined behavior, there is one free unique implementation on the 3 major platforms Linux, Windows and MacOS X, which is stable, support multithreading and has a default GUI library binding, which is difficult to find for Lisp (e.g. I don't know of a free modern and stable Lisp implemenation with mulithreading support for Windows, with a licence with which you can use it in closed source commercial programs, like you can do with Python). Many problems in the Lispbuilder mailing list are related to problems due to different operating systems and Lisp implementations. But maybe the most important point: The syntax looks simple compared to Common Lisp (much less parentheses) and if you program in Python, it feels easier for programmer newbies. As Sussman says: undergraduates initial experiences maximally productive. And this holds even for more experienced programmers. If you know already a bit of C, it is easy to use Python, but without the ability to do silly errors like writing out of array bounds (of course, you can do this in Lisp, too, if you remember to set the safe mode and if you use the right implementation). GC helps, too, to make the programming task easier than in C. Some more arguments, e.g. 5 times less program size than Java or C and more productive programmers: http://www.artima.com/intv/speedP.html (of course, an interview with Van Rossum might be a bit biased :-) -- Frank Buss, f...@frank-buss.de http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
In article 1cethsrrw8h6k$.9ty7j7u7zovn@40tude.net, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: there is one free unique implementation on the 3 major platforms Linux, Windows and MacOS X Most people would still consider Solaris to be a major platform. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Roy Smith wrote: In article 1cethsrrw8h6k$.9ty7j7u7zovn@40tude.net, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: there is one free unique implementation on the 3 major platforms Linux, Windows and MacOS X Most people would still consider Solaris to be a major platform. ?? I do not, but I have no idea what comes in 4th after the other three by whatever metric. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On 7/19/2009 1:01 PM Terry Reedy said... Roy Smith wrote: In article 1cethsrrw8h6k$.9ty7j7u7zovn@40tude.net, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: there is one free unique implementation on the 3 major platforms Linux, Windows and MacOS X Most people would still consider Solaris to be a major platform. ?? I do not, but I have no idea what comes in 4th after the other three by whatever metric. one metric calls fourth as the iPhone OS... http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8qptimeframe=Yqpsp=2009qpmr=100qpdt=1qpct=0qpob=UV%20DESC Emile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 fft1...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: E.g. the number system: In many Lisp implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6 2 / 3 results in 0. Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now it returns 0.66, which will result in lots of fun for porting applications written for Python = 2.6. How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good job discussing the issue. I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL). Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Carl Banks wrote: On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 fft1...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: E.g. the number system: In many Lisp implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6 2 / 3 results in 0. Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now it returns 0.66, which will result in lots of fun for porting applications written for Python = 2.6. How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good job discussing the issue. I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL). Carl Banks This is an incredibly important discussion and is much weaker because it does not also include Pascal, BASIC, Ada, Oberon and Forth. In fact, picking a computer language is the most important discussion in Computer Science and eclipses even P=NP? in significance. I sure hope we can keep this thread going for a few months. For guidance, see: http://www.tundraware.com/Technology/How-To-Pick-A-Programming-Language/ -- Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Emile van Sebille em...@fenx.com writes: Most people would still consider Solaris to be a major platform. ?? I do not, but I have no idea what comes in 4th after the other three by whatever metric. one metric calls fourth as the iPhone OS... http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8... That metric is clearly wrong. The #1 platform OS platform in terms of number of units shipped is Javacard, which is in the SIM cards of billions of GSM phones. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Jul 19, 4:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com wrote: Carl Banks wrote: On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 fft1...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: E.g. the number system: In many Lisp implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6 2 / 3 results in 0. Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now it returns 0.66, which will result in lots of fun for porting applications written for Python = 2.6. How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good job discussing the issue. I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL). Carl Banks This is an incredibly important discussion It might be an important question but a discussion on Usenet about it is utterly useless. and is much weaker because it does not also include Pascal, BASIC, Ada, Oberon and Forth. In the same way that a movie is weaker because the director edited out the bad scenes. In fact, picking a computer language is the most important discussion in Computer Science and eclipses even P=NP? in significance. I sure hope we can keep this thread going for a few months. Please feel free to extend this flame-war along for a few months on comp.lang.lisp. Not here. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:09:28 -0400 Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote: In article 1cethsrrw8h6k$.9ty7j7u7zovn@40tude.net, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: there is one free unique implementation on the 3 major platforms Linux, Windows and MacOS X Most people would still consider Solaris to be a major platform. Depends on who you ask. On the desktop it doesn't matter at all (fortunately, since everytime I work on Solaris I'm entering a world of pain which is just slowly getting better with OpenSolaris), on the server it (and other propietary Unices) is losing ground compared to the free Unices. But ok, let's say 3 major platforms: Unix, Windows and Mac OS X. Mac OS X is formally a Unix but everything with GUI is non-Unix'y so it can be considered a separate platform. regards, Marek -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:33:39 -0700, fft1976 wrote: On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: E.g. the number system: In many Lisp implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6 2 / 3 results in 0. Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now it returns 0.66, which will result in lots of fun for porting applications written for Python = 2.6. How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html Besides, one can legitimately disagree that 2/3 = 0 is the wrong thing to do. It's the right thing to do if you're doing integer maths. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?
Carl Banks wrote: On Jul 19, 4:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com wrote: Carl Banks wrote: On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 fft1...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss f...@frank-buss.de wrote: E.g. the number system: In many Lisp implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6 2 / 3 results in 0. Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now it returns 0.66, which will result in lots of fun for porting applications written for Python = 2.6. How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in the market place despite starting 40 years later. There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good job discussing the issue. I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL). Carl Banks This is an incredibly important discussion It might be an important question but a discussion on Usenet about it is utterly useless. and is much weaker because it does not also include Pascal, BASIC, Ada, Oberon and Forth. In the same way that a movie is weaker because the director edited out the bad scenes. In fact, picking a computer language is the most important discussion in Computer Science and eclipses even P=NP? in significance. I sure hope we can keep this thread going for a few months. Please feel free to extend this flame-war along for a few months on comp.lang.lisp. Not here. Carl Banks Uh Carl ... are you familiar with the concept of mocking humor? -- Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
