> C# had these feature but still the scientific community went for
> Python and not C#.
C# is a explicitly compiled language. And a Windows language. (Mono is
irrelevant, it would be a huge dependency.)
Next?
___
es-discuss mailing list
> People are more inclined to go for readable and less verbose
> languages
You keep saying that's *the reason* scientific and data-scientific
community prefers Python but haven't provided evidence, continuing to
sidestep:
● Python's intrinsic support for large numbers
● Python's strong
The single character
_
*is already a valid identifier* as Ron said.
And not an obscure one (not that that would matter) but rather *the
global object used by the Underscore library*.
You might as well be using
$
here and trying to convince people to stop using it as the top level
of
> the only thing really missing (and which python has) is a builtin
> wasm-sqlite3 library (and specialized/secure file-api's to persist
> sqlite-db-blobs).
Browsers (WPWG, not this group) tried WebSQL. It failed because there
wasn't a competitive bake-off with any other implementations _besides_
> I don't see any reason why Python is widely used in math and
> science…
Should talk to longtime Python peeps about it, it's not just "easy" or
they'd be using VB6!
Let me leave this here:
Python has had bignum (arbitrary precision Integers) since 2008.
Even before that, it had Long
E-40 uses the preferred pronouns he/him/his. There's no need to muddy
the (40) Waters here.
—— Sandy
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
> I don't think we can say that we live in a JSON centric world
But we do.
It's not that there aren't powerful XML-based applications still being
developed. And XML still buttresses some of the most important
back-end components of the modern (as well as ancient) web.
But surely you cannot have
> let foo =
This is a retread of E4X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript_for_XML)
so I can't imagine it would be resuscitated in a (for better or worse)
JSON-centric
world.
—— Sandy
___
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
> You need to cite your sources
> hi Sandy, sure hear are 2 sources:
So you believe these 2 patches prove "most of the tech debt" across
all JavaScript product development is due to this factor.
Huh.
Well, to each their own as far as how "proof" works. I prefer the
classical definition. You
You need to cite your sources for the claim that "most of the tech
debt" in JavaScript product development is due to accidentally using
types other than 20-year-old built-ins and having to figure out the
daunting task of JSON serialization.
—— Sandy
> I personally would prefer that these proposals are specified in terms
> of *what's actually being proposed*
I think what's actually being proposed is that we fall for a troll.
Possibly an academic troll who will later ridicule its victims, viz.
the Social Text scandal
11 matches
Mail list logo
