[Followup-To: header set to comp.lang.lisp.]
On 2012-04-11, Shmuel Metz spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid wrote:
In 87wr5nl54w@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com, on 04/10/2012
at 09:10 PM, Rainer Weikusat rweiku...@mssgmbh.com said:
'car' and 'cdr' refer to cons cells in Lisp, not to
On 2012-04-09, Shmuel Metz spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid wrote:
In 20120408114313...@kylheku.com, on 04/08/2012
at 07:14 PM, Kaz Kylheku k...@kylheku.com said:
Null-terminated strings are infinitely better than the ridiculous
encapsulation of length + data.
ROTF,LMAO!
For one thing
On 2012-04-09, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article 4f82d3e2$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2...@news.patriot.net,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid wrote:
Null terminated strings have simplified all kids of text
manipulation, lexical scanning, and data storage/communication
[Followup-To: header set to comp.lang.lisp.]
On 2012-04-08, David Canzi dmca...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com wrote:
hi guys,
sorry am feeling a bit prolifit lately.
today's show, is: 'Fuck Python'
http://xahlee.org/comp/fuck_python.html
On 2012-04-08, Peter J. Holzer hjp-usen...@hjp.at wrote:
On 2012-04-08 17:03, David Canzi dmca...@uwaterloo.ca wrote:
If you added up the cost of all the extra work that people have
done as a result of Microsoft's decision to use '\' as the file
name separator, it would probably be enough
[Followup-To: header set to comp.lang.lisp.]
On 2009-08-17, Peter Keller psil...@merlin.cs.wisc.edu wrote:
In comp.lang.scheme Peter Keller psil...@merlin.cs.wisc.edu wrote:
The distance() function in this new model is the centroid of the syntactic
datum which represent the semantic object.
On 2009-06-05, Vend ven...@virgilio.it wrote:
On Jun 4, 8:35 pm, Roedy Green see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid
wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:46:44 -0700 (PDT), Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
• Why Must Software Be Rewritten For Multi-Core
[Followup-To: header set to comp.lang.lisp.]
On 2009-06-04, Roedy Green see_webs...@mindprod.com.invalid wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:46:44 -0700 (PDT), Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
Why Must Software Be Rewritten For Multi-Core Processors?
On 2009-01-28, Xah Lee xah...@gmail.com wrote:
Function Application is not Currying
That's correct, Xah. Currying is a special case of function application.
A currying function is applied to some other function, and returns function
that has fewer arguments.
In some languages, you don't see
On 2008-12-05, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say for example, we want to write a function that takes a vector
(of linear algebra), and return a vector in the same direction but
with length 1. In linear algebar terminology, the new vector is called
the “normalized” vector of the
On 2008-12-10, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
means, we want a function whose input is a list of 3 elements say
^^ ^^^
Kaz, pay attention:
[ reformatted to 7 bit USASCII ]
Xah wrote: Note, that the norm
of any
On 2008-12-04, Jürgen Exner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
toby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:15 pm, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 3, 8:24 am, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My example demonstrates several of Mathematica's fundamental limitations.
enough babble Jon.
Come
On 2008-11-26, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.java.programmer
2008-11-25
Recently, Steve Yegge implemented Javascript in Emacs lisp, and
compared the 2 languages.
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/
On 2008-11-26, Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you see, how you latched your personal beef about anti software
crisis philosophy into this no namespace thread?
I did no such thing. My post was about explaining the decision process
that causes humans to either adopt some technical solution
[Followup-To: header set to comp.lang.lisp.]
On 2008-10-29, Martin Rubey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear all,
I'm trying to call from common lisp functions written for Sage
(www.sagemath.org), which in turn is written in python.
Maybe those functions will work under CLPython?
CLPython is
On May 2, 5:19 pm, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 3, 2:15 am, Kaz Kylheku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kindly refrain from creating any more off-topic, cross-posted threads.
Thanks.
The only off-topic posting in this thread is your own (and now this
one).
You are making a very
On May 2, 11:22 am, sturlamolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday Microsoft announced a new runtime for dynamic languages,
Kindly refrain from creating any more off-topic, cross-posted threads.
Thanks.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paddy wrote:
Carl Banks wrote:
If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should
have done is to not cross-post this.
I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at
That's already covered in the orginal thread. Same two newsgroups, same
crowd of
Steven Haflich wrote:
Ray wrote:
Can one really survive knowing just
one language these days, anyway?
いいえ！ 違います。
iie! chigaimas.
No, I beg to differ!
(Hey, I'm in right the middle of preparing my Kanji-drilling Lisp
program for distribution).
--
Paul Rubin wrote:
Raffael Cavallaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com writes:
For example, a common lisp with optional static typing on demand would
be strictly more expressive than common lisp. But, take say, haskell;
haskell's static typing is not optional (you can work
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
André Thieme a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers schrieb:
(snip)
Both are highly dynamic. Neither are declarative.
Well, Lisp does support some declarative features in the ansi standard.
If you go that way, there are declarative stuff in Python too... But
Rob Warnock wrote:
And for any of you who are rejecting this because you don't want to
learn or use Emacs, Raffael's point is even true in the Vi family of
editors (nvi vim, at least). The y% command yanks (copies)
everything through the matching paren into the anonymous buffer;
d% deletes
I V wrote:
To be a little provocative, I wonder if the idea that you're talking to
the interpreter doesn't apply more to lisp than to python; you can have
any syntax you like, as long as it looks like an AST.
Actually, that is false. You can have any syntax you like in Common
Lisp. For
Bill Atkins wrote:
(Why are people from c.l.p calling parentheses brackets?)
Because that's what they are often called outside of the various
literate fields.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paddy wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctest
I pity the hoplelessly anti-intellectual douche-bag who inflicted this
undergraduate misfeature upon the programming language.
This must be some unofficial patch that still has a hope of being shot
down in flames, right?
--
Paddy wrote:
Does Lisp have a doctest-like module as part of its standard
distribution?
No, and it never will.
The wording you are using betrays cluelessness. Lisp is an ANSI
standard language. Its distribution is a stack of paper.
There isn't a ``standard distribution'' of Lisp any more than
Kay Schluehr wrote:
Juan R. wrote:
A bit ambiguous my reading. What is not feasible in general? Achieving
compositionality?
Given two languages L1 = (G1,T1), L2 = (G2, T2 ) where G1, G2 are
grammars and T1, T2 transformers that transform source written in L1 or
L2 into some base language
Paul Rubin wrote:
André Thieme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
import module
module.function = memoize(module.function)
Yes, I mentioned that a bit earlier in this thread (not about the
during runtime thing).
I also said that many macros only save some small bits of code.
Your python
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'd love to say it has been fun, but it has been more frustrating than
enjoyable. I don't mind an honest disagreement between people who
Honest disagreement requires parties who are reasonably informed, and
who are willing not to form opinions about things that they have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, having read a lot of this thread, I can see one of the
reasons why the software profession might want to avoid
lispies. With advocacy like this, who needs detractors?
And thus your plan for breaking into the software profession is ... to
develop Usenet advocacy
Paul Rubin wrote:
Kaz Kylheku [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A
modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious
Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas.
What are some of their names, and what ideas
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
But Lisp's syntax is so unlike most written natural languages that that it
is a whole different story.
Bahaha!
Yes, the human brain is amazingly flexible,
and people can learn extremely complex syntax and grammars (especially if
they start young enough) so I'm not
Kirk Sluder wrote:
unnecessary abstraction. The question I have is why do critics
single out macros and not other forms of abstraction such as
objects, packages, libraries, and functions?
The answer is: because they are pitiful morons.
But you knew that already.
--
Mark Tarver wrote:
I don't mind controversy - as long as there is intelligent argument.
And since it involves Python and Lisp, well it should be posted to both
groups. The Lispers will tend to say that Lisp is better for sure -
so it gives the Python people a chance to defend this creation.
Paul Rubin wrote:
Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A
modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious
Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas.
What are some of their names, and what ideas are they working on?
Also, who are the less
John Salerno wrote:
But what if you are an expert Python program and have zero clue about
other languages?
Then I would say that you are not a mature computing professional, but
merely a Python jockey.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Xah Lee wrote:
Has anyone read this paper? And, would anyone be interested in giving a
summary?
Not you, of course. Too busy preparing the next diatribe against UNIX,
Perl, etc. ;)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
You will often hear that for reasons of fault minimization, you should
use a programming language with strict typing:
http://turing.une.edu.au/~comp284/Lectures/Lecture_18/lecture/node1.html
Quoting from that web page:
A programming language with strict typing and
Ilpo Nyyssönen wrote:
This is one big thing that makes code
less error-prone: using existing well made libraries.
You can find binary search from python standard library too (but actually the
API
in Java is a bit better, see the return values).
Well, you can say that the binary search is a
Bill Pursell wrote:
Have you tried
cat file | sort | uniq | wc -l ?
The standard input file descriptor of sort can be attached directly to
a file. You don't need a file catenating process in order to feed it:
sort file | uniq | wc -l
Sort has the uniq functionality built in:
sort -u
Bill Pursell wrote:
Have you tried
cat file | sort | uniq | wc -l ?
The standard input file descriptor of sort can be attached directly to
a file. You don't need a file catenating process in order to feed it:
sort file | uniq | wc -l
And sort also takes a filename argument:
sort file |
Paddy wrote:
If the log has a lot of repeated lines in its original state then
running uniq twice, once up front to reduce what needs to be sorted,
might be quicker?
Having the uniq and sort steps integrated in a single piece of software
allows for the most optimization opportunities.
The
Xah Lee wrote:
Tabs vs Spaces can be thought of as parameters vs hard-coded values, or
HTML vs ascii format, or XML/CSS vs HTML 4, or structural vs visual, or
semantic vs format. In these, it is always easy to convert from the
former to the latter, but near impossible from the latter to the
achates wrote:
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
If you want to do nice typesetting of code, you have to add markup
which has to be stripped away if you actually want to run the code.
Typesetting code is not a helpful activity outside of the publishing
industry.
Be that as it may, code writing involves
Duncan Booth wrote:
One big problem with this is that with the decorator the function has a
name but with a lambda you have anonymous functions so your tracebacks are
really going to suck.
Is this an issue with this particular design that is addressed by other
designs?
Are the existing
Sybren Stuvel wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] enlightened us with:
this is how I think it should be done with multi-line lambdas:
def arg_range(inf, sup, f):
return lambda(arg):
if inf = arg = sup:
return f(arg)
else:
raise ValueError
This is going to be fun to
Terry Reedy wrote:
So name it err_inner. Or _err.
Right. The C language approach to namespaces.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Duncan Booth wrote:
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
Duncan Booth wrote:
One big problem with this is that with the decorator the function has
a name but with a lambda you have anonymous functions so your
tracebacks are really going to suck.
Is this an issue with this particular design
Antoon Pardon wrote:
Could you give me an example. Suppose I have the following:
def arg_range(inf, sup):
def check(f):
def call(arg):
if inf = arg = sup:
return f(arg)
else:
raise ValueError
return call
return check
def arg_range(inf, sup)
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
But suppose that the expression and the multi-line lambda body are
reordered? That is to say, the expression is written normally, and the
mlambda expressions in it serve as /markers/ indicating that body
material follows. This results in the most Python-like solution
Steve R. Hastings wrote:
On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:16:50 -0400, Ken Tilton wrote:
The upshot of
what he wrote is that it would be really hard to make semantically
meaningful indentation work with lambda.
Pretty much correct. The complete thought was that it would be painful
all out of
I've been reading the recent cross-posted flamewar, and read Guido's
article where he posits that embedding multi-line lambdas in
expressions is an unsolvable puzzle.
So for the last 15 minutes I applied myself to this problem and come up
with this off-the-wall proposal for you people. Perhaps
John Bokma wrote:
Alex Buell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Send your complaints to:
abuse at sbcglobal dott net
abuse at dreamhost dott com
Yup, done. If he's still with dreamhost he probably is in trouble now. If
not, next.
Hahaha, right. Your complaints probably go straight do /dev/null.
Chris Uppal wrote:
Tagore Smith wrote:
It's much easier to use a killfile than to complain to an ISP, and I
think that that should be the preferred response to messages you don't
like.
I'm inclined to agree. The problem is not Xah Lee (whom I have killfiled),
but
What is the point
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The wildcard exclusion problem is interesting enough to have many
distinct, elegant solutions in as many languages.
In that case, you should have crossposted to comp.lang.python also.
Your program looks like a dog's breakfast.
--
Walter Roberson wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In hindsight analysis, such language behavior forces the programer to
fuse mathematical or algorithmic ideas with implementation details. A
easy way to see this, is to ask yourself: how come in mathematics
SM Ryan wrote:
# easy way to see this, is to ask yourself: how come in mathematics
# there's no such thing as addresses/pointers/references.
The whole point of Goedelisation was to add to name/value references into
number theory.
Is that so? That implies that there is some table where you
Lawrence DâOliveiro wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A[n] easy way to see this, is to ask yourself: how come in mathematics
there's no such thing as addresses/pointers/references.
Yes there are such things in mathematics, though not necessarily under
SM Ryan wrote:
Kaz Kylheku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# SM Ryan wrote:
# # easy way to see this, is to ask yourself: how come in mathematics
# # there's no such thing as addresses/pointers/references.
#
# The whole point of Goedelisation was to add to name/value references
SM Ryan wrote:
Kaz Kylheku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# SM Ryan wrote:
# # easy way to see this, is to ask yourself: how come in mathematics
# # there's no such thing as addresses/pointers/references.
#
# The whole point of Goedelisation was to add to name/value references
60 matches
Mail list logo
