On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 8:23:49 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:46 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
>
> > Lots of questions... I would guess rhetorical.
>
> They weren't rhetorical.
>
> You've made a lot of claims about the origins of computer science, and I've
> question
On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:12:00 AM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
> > If Intuitionism influenced computer science, where is the evidence of this?
> > Where are the Intuitionist computer scientists?
>
> Pretty much all of them, I thought. E.g. programs
Yeah…
Saying w
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> If Intuitionism influenced computer science, where is the evidence of this?
> Where are the Intuitionist computer scientists?
Pretty much all of them, I thought. E.g. programs in typed lambda
calculus amount to intuitionistic proofs of the propositions given in
the typ
On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 03:46 pm, Rustom Mody wrote:
> Lots of questions... I would guess rhetorical.
They weren't rhetorical.
You've made a lot of claims about the origins of computer science, and I've
questioned some of your statements. Answers would be appreciated.
> However under the assumptio
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> But out of 20MB, I easily had *space* for a compiler. The problem was
>> compilation time. I could mess around in BASIC with reasonable
>> turnaround times; I could mess around in DEBUG with excellent
>> turnaround tim
Chris Angelico writes:
> But out of 20MB, I easily had *space* for a compiler. The problem was
> compilation time. I could mess around in BASIC with reasonable
> turnaround times; I could mess around in DEBUG with excellent
> turnaround times. Doing even the tiniest work in C meant delays long
> e
On Sunday 31 July 2016 12:39:00 Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:31:42 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
>
>
> declaimed the following:
> >And you know what? That's fine. It's *good* that there are language
> >designers with different ideas of what's valuable. That gives us a
> > rich eco-s
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:55 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>> Yes, and we didn't have Python then. When I had a computer with 640KB
>> of memory, my options were (1) BASIC or (2) 8086 assembly language,
>> using DEBUG.EXE and its mini-assembler. Later on (much much later), I
>> a
Chris Angelico writes:
> Yes, and we didn't have Python then. When I had a computer with 640KB
> of memory, my options were (1) BASIC or (2) 8086 assembly language,
> using DEBUG.EXE and its mini-assembler. Later on (much much later), I
> added C to the available languages, but it was tedious and
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:21 AM, wrote:
> On Monday, 1 August 2016 00:50:09 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
>> > On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> >
>> >> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list
On Monday, 1 August 2016 00:50:09 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
> > On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
> >
> >> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as
> >> he clearly doesn't use Python for anythi
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:11 AM, wrote:
>> In that same thread, one of the lead Python devs Victor Stinner talks about
>> some of his work on embedded devices where he has a hard limit of 128MB for
>> *everything*: boot loader, kernel, OS, applications, etc.
>
> (128MB or 128KB? In the 1980s we w
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 16:31:56 UTC+1, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 08:18 pm, BartC wrote:
> The whole point of an optimizing compiler is that you don't have to detect
> patterns yourself. The compiler does it. There's a whole science to writing
> optimizing compilers these days,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, wrote:
> On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as
>> he clearly doesn't use Python for anything, and hasn't used Python for
>> any real amount of coding. He has no ve
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote:
> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as
> he clearly doesn't use Python for anything, and hasn't used Python for
> any real amount of coding. He has no vested interest in Python so why
> should his opi
On 07/31/2016 10:04 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:53:47 -0400
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
>> On the other hand I have no throwaway accounts. Every address I use
>> is a primary one. I have all sorts of methods to block spam. None of
>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> As for the original topic: Guido judged that a uniform rule "Compound
> statement headers end with ':' and the next line has an additional indent"
> would make correct code easier to write and parse and make it visually more
> obvious. Some P
On 31 Jul 2016, at 19:22, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:25 am, Gordon Levi wrote:
I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
open invitation for spammers. I doubt if there is anybody who uses
their primary email address.
Spammers have moved on from U
On 7/31/2016 6:18 AM, BartC wrote:
The costs are near zero: at minimum, a syntactic construct such as:
repeat N:
that expands to:
for _ in range(N):
The benefit is not so much performance, but being able to express
something very easily and quickly.
The cost of the 'repeat' contraction i
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> There's a real mystery why concatenative/postfix languages have
> received so little attention from the academic community compared to
> prefix languages.
There's a wiki with lots of info: http://www.concatenative.org
This LTU thread and the article it links to is kind
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 12:25 am, Gordon Levi wrote:
> I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
> open invitation for spammers. I doubt if there is anybody who uses
> their primary email address.
Spammers have moved on from Usenet. Those few that haven't are
indistinguishab
>On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Gerald Britton
> wrote:
>> Today, I was reading RH's Descriptor HowTo Guide at
>>
>> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/descriptor.html?highlight=descriptors
>>
>> I just really want to fully "get" this.
>>
>> So I put together a little test from scratch. Looks like
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 05:39 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> It has always perplexed me that Lisp's prefix notation is held up as
>> the /sine qua non/ of elegance and power, while Forth is ignored if not
>> ridiculed.
>
> The reason Lisp is easier to program in than Forth is no
Gordon Levi :
> I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
> open invitation for spammers. I doubt if there is anybody who uses
> their primary email address.
Feel free to keep admiring me.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" writes:
> So I have to examine every address I reply to or deal with the bounce
> message later. Way to move your spam problem to someone else.
It's not entirely about spam. I stopped posting addresses because
people kept insisting on replying to my posts by email instead of
Ian Kelly writes:
> What does JSON have to do with LISP?
JSON is a crappy form of S-expressions.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:53:47 -0400
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
> On the other hand I have no throwaway accounts. Every address I use
> is a primary one. I have all sorts of methods to block spam. None of
> those methods involves moving my spam problem to someo
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:25:58 +1000
Gordon Levi wrote:
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
> >I don't care if you are using carrier pigeon. If you send an email
> >address, make it a valid one.
>
> I admire those who use a valid email address on Usenet but it is an
> open invitation for spammers. I doub
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 08:18 pm, BartC wrote:
> On 31/07/2016 03:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 04:46 am, BartC wrote:
>
>>> No named loop variable to invent, create, maintain, and destroy. No
>>> range object to create, destroy etc. If you're looking for ways for a
>>> language t
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Jul 2016 16:14:18 +0100
>BartC wrote:
>> > By the way, the last time I replied to you it went to the list but
>> > your address bounced. Was that a glitch or are you using an
>> > invalid address in a mailing list?
>>
>> Do you mean my email address? That
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Gerald Britton
wrote:
> Today, I was reading RH's Descriptor HowTo Guide at
>
> https://docs.python.org/3/howto/descriptor.html?highlight=descriptors
>
> I just really want to fully "get" this.
>
> So I put together a little test from scratch. Looks like this:
>
>
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 1:51 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> It is quite astounding how Lisp is steadily being reinvented by the
> down-to-earth programming community. It was famously observed by Paul
> Graham in 2002 (http://www.paulgraham.com/icad.html>). The
> evolution has kept on going since then
That's exactly the answer I was looking for. Thanks.
I got used too much I guess to solving problems the OOP way, e.g. my code
wraps the session.get invocation with a class to pack together the
arguments and data and also took care of parallelism using gevent, from
within the class.
While a bit m
Today, I was reading RH's Descriptor HowTo Guide at
https://docs.python.org/3/howto/descriptor.html?highlight=descriptors
I just really want to fully "get" this.
So I put together a little test from scratch. Looks like this:
class The:
class Answer:
def __get__(self, obj, type=None
On 31/07/2016 03:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2016 04:46 am, BartC wrote:
No named loop variable to invent, create, maintain, and destroy. No
range object to create, destroy etc. If you're looking for ways for a
language to be more efficient, then why disregard this possibility?
Sivan Greenberg schrieb am 30.07.2016 um 23:15:
> I'm wondering about the use of partial in writing parallel code. Is is it
> quicker than re-evaluating arguments for a multiple session.get()'s method
> with different , for example (of requests) ?
>
> Or maybe it is used to make sure the argumen
Marko Rauhamaa writes:
> Gregory Ewing :
>> If Forth had come out of a computer science department and Lisp had
>> been invented by an astronomer, Lisp would still be the easier
>> language to use.
>
> It is quite astounding how Lisp is steadily being reinvented by the
> down-to-earth programming
Gregory Ewing writes:
> The reason Lisp is easier to program in than Forth is not
> because of prefix vs. postfix. It's because in Lisp a function
> call is syntactically grouped together with its arguments,
> whereas in Forth it's not. Forth requires you to mentally
> simulate the stack to figure
Gregory Ewing :
> If Forth had come out of a computer science department and Lisp had
> been invented by an astronomer, Lisp would still be the easier
> language to use.
It is quite astounding how Lisp is steadily being reinvented by the
down-to-earth programming community. It was famously observe
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
It has always perplexed me that Lisp's prefix notation is held up as
the /sine qua non/ of elegance and power, while Forth is ignored if not
ridiculed.
The reason Lisp is easier to program in than Forth is not
because of prefix vs. postfix. It's because in Lisp a function
40 matches
Mail list logo
