On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 10:36:45 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 8:56:00 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:36:27 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 14/05/2015 02:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 04:07 am, zipher wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:36:27 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 14/05/2015 02:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 04:07 am, zipher wrote:
No, you haven't understood, padawan. Lambda *is* the function, not it's
definition. Perhaps you will understand what I mean by
On Saturday, May 16, 2015 at 8:56:00 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:36:27 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 14/05/2015 02:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 04:07 am, zipher wrote:
No, you haven't understood, padawan. Lambda *is* the
No, Common LISP does, but as the website says Common LISP is a
multi-paradigm langauge. It's trying to be everything to everybody,
just like Python tried to do in the other direction, making everything an
object. Python was trying to be too pure, while LISP was trying to be
too
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 8:14:39 PM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:35:29 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 8:00:50 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Why can't a language be designed with a *practical and concrete* need in
mind? As
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:35:29 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 8:00:50 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Why can't a language be designed with a *practical and concrete* need in
mind? As far as I know, only one language designed from theoretical first
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:47:48 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:11 PM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
I know. That's because most people have fallen off the path
(http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OneTruePath).
You wrote that, didn't you? I recognize that combination of
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:07 PM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
I don't know why I'm replying to this...
Because you're trying to get an answer to a question that even Academia
hasn't answered or understood.
On Wed, May
On 13/05/2015 22:38, Ian Kelly wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:07 PM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, and LISP is neither. Although LISP is a functional style, that is only by
appearance. It's completely different from Haskell, which I would describe as
a true functional
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 4:39:52 PM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:07 PM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
I don't know why I'm replying to this...
Because you're trying to get an answer to a question
I don't know why I'm replying to this...
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:44 AM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:35:29 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
How history U-turns!!
Lisp actually got every major/fundamental thing wrong
- variables scopes were dynamic by
On 14/05/2015 02:40, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2015 04:07 am, zipher wrote:
No, you haven't understood, padawan. Lambda *is* the function, not it's
definition. Perhaps you will understand what I mean by that, perhaps you
won't. It's subtle.
Subtle like a kick to the head.
On Thu, 14 May 2015 04:07 am, zipher wrote:
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
I don't know why I'm replying to this...
Because you're trying to get an answer to a question that even Academia
hasn't answered or understood.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:44 AM, zipher
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:27:23 AM UTC-5, Ian wrote:
I don't know why I'm replying to this...
Because you're trying to get an answer to a question that even Academia hasn't
answered or understood.
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 8:44 AM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday,
On 2015-05-12, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com:
That is why you have very high-level languages that allow you to
rapidly prototype ideas, test them, and then, depending all the other
constraints, move them to lower-level language implementations.
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 10:25:18 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 02:05 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
So if you're writing a library function, it probably shouldn't use
print()... but your application is most
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. I'd also use clear function/procedure names to make it more
visible, and probably tie this in with loops to show how you can print
more than one thing but can only return one. (Generators are a more
advanced topic.)
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 11:47:19 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
Yep. I'd also use clear function/procedure names to make it more
visible, and probably tie this in with loops to show how you can print
more than one thing but can
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I want to do numerical calculations lead to Fortran.
I want to control telescopes lead to Forth.
I don't think those things led to their respective languages
in the same way. The notation that mathematicians use for
numerical calculations had a clear influence on the
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 9:17:48 AM UTC+5:30, Ian wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:11 PM, zipher wrote:
I know. That's because most people have fallen off the path
(http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OneTruePath).
You wrote that, didn't you? I recognize that combination of delusional
Ian Kelly ian.g.ke...@gmail.com:
LISP is also the reason why we're cursed with the terrible name
lambda for anonymous functions rather than something more mnemonic
(like function).
The only terrible aspect of lambda is how difficult it is to type.
BTW, Common Lisp actually has an operator
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:09:01 AM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote:
The difference between C/Lisp (I club them together) and python is that
the former are more heroic.
Like mountain climbing you can get a high, a thrill, even 'see God'ยน but
you can also break your back or worse.
Python
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
And related to that (and one reason a pure functional language is good for
pedagogy): NO PRINT statement
It may seem trivial but beginning students have a real hard writing clean
structured code. Tabooing prints helps
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Stefan Ram r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com writes:
so what kind of bullshit is saying that you should get rid of PRINT?
What might be reasonable is to be able to dissect a program
into functions, and have no effects in
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Rob Gaddi
rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid wrote:
A firm grasp of C will make you a better programmer in any language, even
if you haven't written a line of it in 20 years. It's the ability to
read a map. A lack of C is the person blindly following their GPS
On Tue, 12 May 2015 08:11:25 -0700, zipher wrote:
On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2015 05:01 am, beliav...@aol.com wrote:
Yale has taken the unusual step of outsourcing its introductory CS
class to Harvard, which uses C as the main
On 12/05/2015 07:42, Rustom Mody wrote:
And related to that (and one reason a pure functional language is good for
pedagogy): NO PRINT statement
It may seem trivial but beginning students have a real hard writing clean
structured code. Tabooing prints helps get there faster
And working in the
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:48:13 PM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:16:31 AM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 12:27:44 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
And related to that (and one reason
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:45:39 PM UTC+5:30, Stefan Ram wrote:
Rob Gaddi writes:
Is that a true array or a linked list? It's a high level language,
that's just an implementation detail. Yes, but it's an implementation
detail that determines whether even the simple act of looking up
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Stefan Ram r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
Rob Gaddi rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid writes:
Is that a true array or a linked list? It's a high level language,
that's just an implementation detail. Yes, but it's an implementation
detail that determines whether
On 12/05/2015 18:35, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:48:13 PM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
I/O is an essential part of computing in the West. (I'll leave Symbolics out
of of that category.) It started with switches and lights, so what kind of
bullshit is saying that you should
Chris Angelico ros...@gmail.com:
That's as may be, but I would still not recommend [C] as a first
language.
I think the field can be approached from many angles successfully. And
any approach will fail many students.
The nice thing about C is that your feet are firmly on the ground.
There's
On Wed, 13 May 2015 02:05 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
So if you're writing a library function, it probably shouldn't use
print()... but your application is most welcome to. You usually know
which one you're writing at any given time.
You might be, but beginners are not.
I'm not sure I accept
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 6:45:07 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 02:05 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
So if you're writing a library function, it probably shouldn't use
print()... but your application is most welcome to. You usually know
which one you're writing at
On Wed, 13 May 2015 08:00 am, zipher wrote:
Everyone gets it wrong and now we have a plethora of languages which all
do the same thing, without really knowing what they want as an overarching
design or purpose.
Why must a language be designed with some overarching design or purpose?
Why
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info writes:
As far as I know, only one language designed from theoretical first
principles has had any measure of mainstream success, Lisp,
APL was cool back in the day too.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:15:07 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 02:05 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
So if you're writing a library function, it probably shouldn't use
print()... but your application is most welcome to. You usually know
which one you're writing at any
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 12:27:44 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
And related to that (and one reason a pure functional language is good for
pedagogy): NO PRINT statement
It may seem trivial but beginning students have a real hard
zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com:
That is why you have very high-level languages that allow you to
rapidly prototype ideas, test them, and then, depending all the other
constraints, move them to lower-level language implementations.
Finally an argument to tackle. That rapid prototyping role
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 12:57:48 PM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:45:39 PM UTC+5:30, Stefan Ram wrote:
Rob Gaddi writes:
Is that a true array or a linked list? It's a high level language,
that's just an implementation detail. Yes, but it's an implementation
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 1:22:55 PM UTC-5, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 12/05/2015 18:35, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:48:13 PM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
I/O is an essential part of computing in the West. (I'll leave Symbolics
out of of that category.) It started with
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:24:34 PM UTC-5, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com:
That is why you have very high-level languages that allow you to
rapidly prototype ideas, test them, and then, depending all the other
constraints, move them to lower-level language
On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 at 8:00:50 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Why can't a language be designed with a *practical and concrete* need in
mind? As far as I know, only one language designed from theoretical first
principles has had any measure of mainstream success, Lisp, and that was
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 9:30:50 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 08:00 am, zipher wrote:
Everyone gets it wrong and now we have a plethora of languages which all
do the same thing, without really knowing what they want as an overarching
design or purpose.
Why
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:11 PM, zipher dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
I know. That's because most people have fallen off the path
(http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OneTruePath).
You wrote that, didn't you? I recognize that combination of delusional
narcissism and curious obsession with Turing
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2015 02:05 am, Chris Angelico wrote:
So if you're writing a library function, it probably shouldn't use
print()... but your application is most welcome to. You usually know
which one
On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 9:04:24 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2015 05:01 am, beliav...@aol.com wrote:
Yale has taken the unusual step of outsourcing its introductory CS class
to Harvard, which uses C as the main language in its CS50 class.
And another generation of
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:16:31 AM UTC-5, Rustom Mody wrote:
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 12:27:44 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
And related to that (and one reason a pure functional language is good for
pedagogy): NO PRINT
Don't CS departments still have a computer languages survey class? When I
was a graduate student at Iowa in the early 80s, we had one. (It was, as I
recall, an upper level undergrad course. I didn't get into CS until
graduate school, so went back to filled in some missing stuff.) I don't
recall
On 2015-05-11, Skip Montanaro skip.montan...@gmail.com wrote:
Don't CS departments still have a computer languages survey class? When I
was a graduate student at Iowa in the early 80s, we had one. (It was, as I
recall, an upper level undergrad course. I didn't get into CS until
graduate
On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 9:38:38 PM UTC-4, Ian wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Scheme is my favorite language. I think, however, it is a pretty
advanced language and requires a pretty solid basis in programming and
computer science.
On 05/11/2015 08:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2015 05:01 am, beliav...@aol.com wrote:
Yale has taken the unusual step of outsourcing its introductory CS class
to Harvard, which uses C as the main language in its CS50 class.
And another generation of new programmers will be
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 10:34:32 AM UTC+5:30, Michael Torrie wrote:
On 05/11/2015 08:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2015 05:01 am, beliavsky wrote:
Yale has taken the unusual step of outsourcing its introductory CS class
to Harvard, which uses C as the main language in
On Tue, 12 May 2015 05:01 am, beliav...@aol.com wrote:
Yale has taken the unusual step of outsourcing its introductory CS class
to Harvard, which uses C as the main language in its CS50 class.
And another generation of new programmers will be irreversibly damaged by
exposure to C...
--
On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 8:05:56 PM UTC+5:30, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2015-05-11, Skip Montanaro wrote:
Don't CS departments still have a computer languages survey class? When I
was a graduate student at Iowa in the early 80s, we had one. (It was, as I
recall, an upper level undergrad
On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 9:29:31 AM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 11 May 2015 06:43 am, Chris Seberino wrote:
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
to get beginners up and running writing code due to the extremely minimal
simple syntax.
Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester intro
course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow
get the benefits of both?
No. LISP-like languages are very different beasts, requiring different
mind-sets. It's like going from geometry to arithmetic.
On Mon, 11 May 2015 06:43 am, Chris Seberino wrote:
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
to get beginners up and running writing code due to the extremely minimal
simple syntax.
Do you believe that learning syntax is the hardest part for beginners to get
On Sun, 10 May 2015 13:43:03 -0700, Chris Seberino wrote:
Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester intro
course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow get the
benefits of both?
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Chris Seberino cseber...@gmail.com wrote:
Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester intro
course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow
get the benefits of both?
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the
On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 2:46:38 AM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Chris Seberino :
Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester
intro course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow get
the benefits of both?
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning,
Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester intro
course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow
get the benefits of both?
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest language
to get beginners up and running writing code due to the extremely
Chris Seberino cseber...@gmail.com:
Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester
intro course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow get
the benefits of both?
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest
language to get beginners up and
On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 3:43:25 PM UTC-5, Chris Seberino wrote:
Instead of learning only Scheme or only Python for a one semester intro
course, what about learning BOTH? Maybe that could somehow
get the benefits of both?
I'm thinking that for the VERY beginning, Scheme is the fastest
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Marko Rauhamaa ma...@pacujo.net wrote:
Scheme is my favorite language. I think, however, it is a pretty
advanced language and requires a pretty solid basis in programming and
computer science.
Python, in contrast, is a great introductory programming language.
65 matches
Mail list logo
