Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
Ok, I know I shouldn't bite - but I just have to... Read the note on usage again. Here it is in terms geeks will grok: less is used for continuous quantities, fewer is used for discrete quantities less water, fewer drops. less population, fewer people. less traffic, fewer cars. less water != fewer drops -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:21:41PM +1000, QuantumG wrote: Dist thou not knoweth how thee shalt speak?! Prescriptive grammer is domain of the historically ignorant. Language changes, this is a good thing, deal with it. Spelling is one of those new fangled fads that will die out before much longer. - Tel -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:11:42AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: Well, the only bugs I've found to date that cannot be effectively tested for are concurrent operation bugs - threads and co-processes specifically. None of which are detected by compilers, at least not the sort of compilers we have available. There are code analysis tools that can prove correct locking behaviour (e.g. prove your code is deadlock free, prove resources are always locked, etc). I haven't seen one available as open source. - Tel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBQ4WjYMfOVl0KFTApAQKPiw/+IgMDnXb0JZoHersTZQmC4fPX8rMiIkf9 rU6oqPK64K6pdlK/z5m1YQa0Fx7OFMXFJgeSSu2wiK/st3L89KDAFs5eVCWpO2jz NBW7nByd6Suh5+blrr9GZ8PKAvrYbWiKcVc8KzCrSXd7wyaUXT7spJeP244XCZ/9 eo6YRTF0LBrWm5SzSTTmfvHEHuSf3O7LcUjZKzLinBLpFSEa4qkttiU4Qyq5eTtj bdDG1/xbWMEBfD8sYUiH8b+GYk9fYtr4aRLLgusH4C6PCscvZy21xnHyit9XpXbb MpZfX4dQFgaZtjg/H2kXh9qEs2P4J8pamG6DQxHJNfthcXBniQ7cL8z8DOo8h/4T c6JfQRNQDbAOLtRlzofojhrJYE7FEyOWIwdK/r18Mb0GuuAu8pY1fsAF0kgfuMZN CAaOE0r51krFppPQBbcapM4k3WXfyjfghgdtos2OpX/3v0v83O59dF62+Czyybh5 X05CizYsSH3x0DfXbfVIK2Y7BFSgLTI6BQeXAlTnirGhmhL1+j2Yj6Xl6pwQQCIV 0ZaoPiy443R28KpzKUG9gn8qZCAmP8ZoueyHbCUjfq4tc8sPa5tWhDYXC4OEDukn s0TsYSznkHpL3WYr6hHFo0ewkk2kpVVM2+JecIDedY01XF+NBzCgwDPEbHyDh4Ji WNmKO8M9mcg= =r2JJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:42:54PM +1100, Del wrote: Less is a measure of quality not quantity. If I have less money than you do, the quality of my money is still exactly the same as yours. So by saying there are less bugs what you are implying is that there are the same number of bugs, but the bugs are smaller. That would be lesser bugs. What you probably want to say is fewer bugs. This implies that the functional behaviour of a computer program can be measured in countable, integer units -- an implication that I for one would hesitate to make. There is a fundamental problem with the colloquial usage of the word bugs because insects are countable and and computer misbehavior is not. - Tel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBQ4Wp+cfOVl0KFTApAQJndhAAjpOoqxLFQyyKGSvmPaFuMLuLSd/da/Vh kMwojeryA+ZltaEmX3I4l4TeLZ4uZu3U/cbqkTpDL+/Jy3nkox/7pr5miSzhaVst T4Q52oyKl2b1C6cxpNPAEON6ejrOdA5UoHkVYlu4y4YOwR5M28H0Afq2HIXTUo7l uV4LwGlMJ6VM6VKfydypOxOd0yJX1ByFqYtE7bIREoFOAWVQRa4wpraWJQBPnITn 2lUUrmYAqEhGiEJ0j/kXMIJ4zJoyg5ZKMLUAjg/bihB5a74sSVMPCjs+7WV/luht FNAI/wAZdpVIlFw7jEzsYqeoItKejZedlgkAR6pUmWmYLn17zV7WCZgGeFHspWru TuHz4tBsCWSZwc6CNAXVnOehxF6mu+pyHtKvPsmlfAoInK2HhqJP7bMeZ8s2UCaE g6s/wnuFpQ5M4GDatvxiMNy85Xtp9ICI0Sg2lhG0xbP8dOuuVofONRz/f5Db6XSk EILD/dyi1SgKntRvl/Yx+CSKEHfeSgBCQtGws/AXbBh6oMy9KIJ2BdTckxcMeP8u InonJRGbOJJVaFZeoH3NBa/jHwOwbbAOtDewBv9pRa1KDcJDC4o+TiNQ/Kk9vLTd T/xxLiZU5QQWjLAj/0lxbCzu8s9VOdpH+dcTo0Y0HMAUpuPYaOVDZe79o1PcXjfc cuKI10pomXM= =zBiz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 22:42, Del wrote:
Steve Lindsay wrote:
Python works for me because:
a) i (and others) write less code because the language is very
expressive. therefore less bugs
Gra. Grammar fascist attack coming up:
Less is a measure of quality not quantity. So by saying there are
less bugs what you are implying is that there are the same number
of bugs, but the bugs are smaller. What you probably want to say is
fewer bugs.
int main(){
if ( bugs.original() bugs.new() ){
cout We don't have as many bugs - yay for us! endl;
else
cout Either things are worse or no better - woe is us endl;
}
return 0;
}
Hmmm, less bugs or fewer bugs is still shorter. I'm with Palmer, let's go
grow some corn.
James
--
Accept people for what they are -- completely unacceptable.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
Steve Lindsay wrote: Python works for me because: a) i (and others) write less code because the language is very expressive. therefore less bugs Gra. Grammar fascist attack coming up: Less is a measure of quality not quantity. So by saying there are less bugs what you are implying is that there are the same number of bugs, but the bugs are smaller. What you probably want to say is fewer bugs. Just to prove I can be as anal as others, Less is an indicator of quantity as defined by the Oxford Dictionary: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/less?view=uk as in I have less apples than you. -- James Purser Producer/Presenter - Linux Australia Update http://k-sit.com - My Blog http://la-pod.k-sit.com - Linux Australia Update Podcast, Blog and Forums Skype: purserj1977 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:48 +1100, James Purser wrote: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/less?view=uk Read the note on usage again. Here it is in terms geeks will grok: less is used for continuous quantities, fewer is used for discrete quantities less water, fewer drops. less population, fewer people. less traffic, fewer cars. Express lane: 8 items or FEWER mumble/ -- Regards Peter Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\/\*http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~millerp/ PGP public key ID: 1024D/D0EDB64D fingerprint = AD0A C5DF C426 4F03 5D53 2BDB 18D8 A4E2 D0ED B64D See http://www.keyserver.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
Peter Miller wrote: On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:48 +1100, James Purser wrote: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/less?view=uk Read the note on usage again. Dist thou not knoweth how thee shalt speak?! Prescriptive grammer is domain of the historically ignorant. Language changes, this is a good thing, deal with it. Trent -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On 11/23/05, Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I agree wholeheartedly that tests are necessay, I'm curious why you are advocating writing Python tests to find bugs at run time that say an Ocaml compiler will find for free at compile time. While I would agree that catching any bugs asap is a good thing, I find that typos and the like are not the problems that are causing me most grief (crappy logic, crappy requirements, not enough time, other developers writing crappy code, etc are more likely to cause me problems). Python works for me because: a) i (and others) write less code because the language is very expressive. therefore less bugs b) i (and others) write less code because there are heaps of modules out there to do many of the things I need to do (and so many of them come as part of the standard library). therefore less bugs c) i write code and it tends to work first or second go (which says way more about python than it does about my coding ability). I don't have to fight the language, and don't often think why did they do it that way? d) the code tends to be easy to read (both my code and the code in standard modules etc.) e) i don't have to look up the documentation each time I try something slightly new (I can keep a large chunk of the language in my head or I can work it out by playing around in the interpreter for a few minutes) f) actually I'll mention the interpreter again, it seems such a simple thing but the number of times I've not known how to use a module but worked it out in the interpreter using a combination of dir, help and __doc__ in a short period of time makes it worth mentioning as a point on it's own Erik, I've never used ocaml (and know very little about it). Would you be able to evaluate it against some of the points I've raised above, particularly in comparison to python (I'm assuming you've used python based on your criticism)? (I'm not suggesting my criteria are the only ones that matter, different experience, different projects, different environments etc might make other things more or less important, they are criteria that are relevant to me however) Cheers.Steve -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
Steve Lindsay wrote: While I would agree that catching any bugs asap is a good thing, I find that typos and the like are not the problems that are causing me most grief (crappy logic, crappy requirements, not enough time, other developers writing crappy code, etc are more likely to cause me problems). I recently worked on a quite large piece of Python code which I inherited without any tests. The only way to test it was to run it which took 10-15 minutes. While I was working on this I was constantly finding that little bugs that an Ocaml/Haskell/Ada/Pascal etc compiler would have found were killing me at run time. It was a royal PITA. rearranged your post slightly Erik, I've never used ocaml (and know very little about it). I spoke at SLUG about it. Slides here: http://www.mega-nerd.com/tmp/firstimp-ocaml.pdf An Ocaml tutorial is here: http://www.ocaml-tutorial.org/ Would you be able to evaluate it against some of the points I've raised above, particularly in comparison to python (I'm assuming you've used python based on your criticism)? Python works for me because: a) i (and others) write less code because the language is very expressive. therefore less bugs I would say that for pure code (ie not using the excellent Python libraries) Ocaml will require slightly less LOC than Python. b) i (and others) write less code because there are heaps of modules The Ocaml libraries are not as extensive, comprehensive or as well documented as those of Python. There are however tasks where even the Python libraries won't help you. c) i write code and it tends to work first or second go (which says way more about python than it does about my coding ability). I don't have to fight the language, and don't often think why did they do it that way? The thing I have found with Ocaml and many others say about Haskell is that if it compiles its usually right. d) the code tends to be easy to read (both my code and the code in standard modules etc.) Once you get around Ocaml's slight weird syntax this does apply. e) i don't have to look up the documentation each time I try something slightly new (I can keep a large chunk of the language in my head or I can work it out by playing around in the interpreter for a few minutes) Ocaml also has a command line interpreter for experimentation. There are also bytecode and native-code compilers. f) actually I'll mention the interpreter again, it seems such a simple thing but the number of times I've not known how to use a module but worked it out in the interpreter using a combination of dir, help and __doc__ in a short period of time makes it worth mentioning as a point on it's own The Ocaml documentation is a little dry and not up the same standard as Python. However, there are some tasks for which Ocaml is a far better fit than Python. For me those would be computer algebra systems and compilers. Erik -- +---+ Erik de Castro Lopo +---+ Whenever the C++ language designers had two competing ideas as to how they should solve some problem, they said, OK, we'll do them both. So the language is too baroque for my taste. -- Donald E Knuth -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On 11/23/05, Erik de Castro Lopo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lots of interesting stuff Cool, thanks Erik. Will check it out. CheersSteve -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
Steve Lindsay wrote: Python works for me because: a) i (and others) write less code because the language is very expressive. therefore less bugs Gra. Grammar fascist attack coming up: Less is a measure of quality not quantity. So by saying there are less bugs what you are implying is that there are the same number of bugs, but the bugs are smaller. What you probably want to say is fewer bugs. This has been a community service announcement. (Just because you write code doesn't mean you can't write English too). -- Del -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
Should probably move this to [chat]... On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:42:54PM +1100, Del wrote: Steve Lindsay wrote: Python works for me because: a) i (and others) write less code because the language is very expressive. therefore less bugs Gra. Grammar fascist attack coming up: Less is a measure of quality not quantity. So by saying there are less bugs what you are implying is that there are the same number of bugs, but the bugs are smaller. What you probably want to say is fewer bugs. Agreed but... Here perhaps is where language differs from code. If enough people over a long enough period of time use less as a measure of quantity (as in something measurable in discrete units), it will indeed become a measure of such. Dictionaries, and therefore definitions, are constructed through analysis of usage. That would throw a spanner in the works for compiler writers wouldn't it? Denis -- Dr Denis Crowdy Department of Contemporary Music Studies Macquarie University NSW 2109, Australia +61 2 9850 6787; http://www.dcms.mq.edu.au -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
quote who=Denis Crowdy Dictionaries, and therefore definitions, are constructed through analysis of usage. That would throw a spanner in the works for compiler writers wouldn't it? Good morning, Perl 6! - Jeff -- Ubuntu USA Europe Tour: Oct-Nov 2005http://wiki.ubuntu.com/3BT Just because I sit in front of a terminal all day doesn't mean I couldn't hunt you down and righteously kick your ass to feed my newfound cannabalism. - Darwinian System Administration -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 07:46:36PM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: Steve Lindsay wrote: While I would agree that catching any bugs asap is a good thing, I find that typos and the like are not the problems that are causing me most grief (crappy logic, crappy requirements, not enough time, other developers writing crappy code, etc are more likely to cause me problems). I recently worked on a quite large piece of Python code which I inherited without any tests. The only way to test it was to run it which took 10-15 minutes. While I was working on this I was constantly finding that little bugs that an Ocaml/Haskell/Ada/Pascal etc compiler would have found were killing me at run time. It was a royal PITA. Any codebase without a comprehensive testsuite is going to be painful to work on. The bugs that a compiled language picks up just get replaced in the royal PITA list by ones that the compiler doesn't pick up. Lather, rinse, repeat. So, you add a testsuite, and then there's a whole new set of bugs that crop up that can't be effectively tested for in the royal PITA list. LRR. Let's just give up this programming thing and go back to farming. def CowTest(unittest.TestCase): [...] - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:01 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: So, you add a testsuite, and then there's a whole new set of bugs that crop up that can't be effectively tested for in the royal PITA list. LRR. Well, the only bugs I've found to date that cannot be effectively tested for are concurrent operation bugs - threads and co-processes specifically. State machine based pseduo concurrency however, gives extremely easy reproduction of a bug, once you identify it ;). What sorts of bugs are your PITA list ? Rob -- GPG key available at: http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: ocaml vs python/ruby/perl etc. was [SLUG] Why not C
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 11:11:42AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:01 +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: So, you add a testsuite, and then there's a whole new set of bugs that crop up that can't be effectively tested for in the royal PITA list. LRR. Well, the only bugs I've found to date that cannot be effectively tested for are concurrent operation bugs - threads and co-processes specifically. State machine based pseduo concurrency however, gives extremely easy reproduction of a bug, once you identify it ;). What sorts of bugs are your PITA list ? GUIs, concurrency, and graceful handling of major system faults (like database goes away in the middle of a transaction) are my three biggies. I avoid them by not doing GUIs or major concurrency unless I can avoid them, and just crossing my fingers that I'll never get an inconvenient database crash. Luckily, I don't do work in environments where such things are critical, otherwise I'd be very much unhappier. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
