On Dec 14, 3:15 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2:48 pm, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 2:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:59:16 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
In any case, I would say that your exercise is the Wrong Way to go about
it. A task as simple as produce PDF output from this file shouldn't
need access to the internals of the OpenOffice GUI application. The Right
Way (in some
Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SD) wrote:
SD I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a disservice by
SD describing Python as an interpreted language. Python is compiled. It has
SD a compiler. It even has a built-in function compile. It's just not
SD compiled to *machine
John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JN) wrote:
JN There's CORBA, for example, and in theory
JN you can script OpenOffice and Gnome via CORBA. But nobody does that.
JN Exercise: write a Python program to convert a .doc file to a .pdf
JN file by invoking OpenOffice via CORBA. At least in theory,
John Nagle wrote:
Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not all that
great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command line
parameters, but all you get back is a status code, plus
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not
all that
great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command line
parameters, but all you get
John Nagle wrote:
Eric S. Johansson wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not
all that
great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command line
On Dec 14, 2007 2:07 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:43:18 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the
following in comp.lang.python:
I still wait to see any clear, unambiguous definition of scripting
language. Which one are you
Chris Mellon wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 2:07 AM, Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:43:18 +0100, Bruno Desthuilliers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the
following in comp.lang.python:
I still wait to see any clear, unambiguous definition of scripting
language. Which
On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, Why would you
write that in a
On Dec 14, 2007 2:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
learn that they are
On Dec 14, 2:48 pm, Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 2:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 11, 10:34 pm, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most
Terry Reedy wrote:
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, Why would you
write that in a scripting language? Whenever I hear a
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:26:54 -0800, John Nagle wrote:
Yes. One of the basic design flaws of UNIX was that interprocess
communication was originally almost nonexistent, and it's still not all
that great. It's easy to run other programs, and easy to send command
line parameters, but all
On 15 Des, 02:59, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
oowriter --print some.doc | ps2pdf
encapsulate, encapsulate. Unfortunately, apps using inter-app
communication tend to do the opposite.
That pipe is a form of IPC as well.
--
Doug Morse a écrit :
ottop-post corrected/ot
But here's my problem,
most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and learn that they are
written in Python ask questions like, Why would you write that in a
scripting language? Whenever I hear a comment like that I can feel
myself boiling
Terry Reedy a écrit :
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, Why would you
write that in a scripting language?
Then ask them
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, anyone (I mean, anyone pretending to be a
programmer) being ignorant enough to ask such a question ranks high in
my bozo list. Don't waste time with bozos.
Alan Kay said it well enough without using words like pretending,
ignorant and
Marco Mariani a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, anyone (I mean, anyone pretending to be a
programmer) being ignorant enough to ask such a question ranks high in
my bozo list. Don't waste time with bozos.
Alan Kay said it well enough without using words like
Neil Cerutti a écrit :
On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in
function compile. It's just not
On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in
function compile. It's just not compiled to *machine
Neil Cerutti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
Python is compiled. It has a compiler. It even has a built-in
function
On 2007-12-13, Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Neil Cerutti a écrit :
On 2007-12-13, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a
disservice by describing Python as an interpreted language.
Python is compiled. It has a
On 13 Des, 02:19, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a disservice by
describing Python as an interpreted language. Python is compiled. It has
a compiler. It even has a built-in function compile.
Python is
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:32:23 -0800, sturlamolden wrote:
On 13 Des, 02:19, Steven D'Aprano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cybersource.com.au wrote:
I have repeatedly argued in the past that we do ourselves a disservice
by describing Python as an interpreted language. Python is compiled. It
has a
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
http://acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Contentpa=showpagepid=273
An interesting quote from that:
If you combine Simula and Lisp—Lisp didn’t have data structures, it had
instances of objects—you would have a dynamic type system that would
give you the range of
On Dec 12, 4:34 am, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, Why would you
write that in a
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:35:40 -0800, oj wrote:
On Dec 12, 4:34 am, Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But here's my problem,
most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and learn that they are
written in Python ask
although perhaps not a part of the definition of scripting languages per se,
one aspect of them is that they are often used to glue a wide variety of
other components together. perl's initial and continued success is in no
small part to all the wrappers and interfaces it has to all sorts of other
Doug Morse wrote:
although perhaps not a part of the definition of scripting languages per se,
one aspect of them is that they are often used to glue a wide variety of
other components together. perl's initial and continued success is in no
small part to all the wrappers and interfaces it has
OK, I don't mean to start any sort of war or flaming or anything here but I
really need to discuss this with other afficionados of Python - I know none
other than myself.
I'm a software developer. Where I work, the dominant development language is
Java with some mostly-legacy C/C++ software.
The term scripting language is a pretty misunderstood one these
days. I hold the opinion that what it is supposed to mean can, today,
apply to any language. C, even, is a scripting language. All any of
our software today is doing is calling out to some other component
and simply acting as
Ron Provost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But here's my problem, most of my coworkers, when they see my apps and
learn that they are written in Python ask questions like, Why would you
write that in a scripting language? Whenever I hear a comment like that I
can
33 matches
Mail list logo
