On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:51:11 -0500 Steve Holden
wrote:
> [snip]
> It's as sensible to complain about people being "*forced* to keep
> perfect indentation" as it is to complain about people being *forced*
> to use braces to delimit code blocks.
>
> This is called "syntax", and it's a part of the
waku wrote:
> On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Jonathan Gardner
> wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 1:51 am, waku wrote:
>>
>>> 'stupid', 'wrong', 'deficient', 'terrible', ... you're using strong
>>> words instead of concrete arguments, it might intimidate your
>>> opponents, but is hardly helpful in a fair discussion.
>>
On Feb 9, 10:41 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:51 am, waku wrote:
>
> > 'stupid', 'wrong', 'deficient', 'terrible', ... you're using strong
> > words instead of concrete arguments, it might intimidate your
> > opponents, but is hardly helpful in a fair discussion.
>
> In today's day a
On Feb 9, 1:51 am, waku wrote:
> 'stupid', 'wrong', 'deficient', 'terrible', ... you're using strong
> words instead of concrete arguments, it might intimidate your
> opponents, but is hardly helpful in a fair discussion.
>
In today's day and age, I don't know how a text editor which cannot do
s
On Feb 2, 10:49 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2:21 am,waku wrote:
[...]
> > there are languages where indentation can be either enforced and allow
> > one to omit some syntactic nuissance like braces or begin-end clauses,
> > or made optional, requiring other syntactic means for delimi
On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:22:03 -0500, Lou Pecora wrote:
[...]
>> > That's what I needed. 3 lines to write or read a inhomogeneous
>> > collection of variables.
>>
>> Easy, but also quick and dirty -- good enough for small scripts, but
>> not really good enough for production applications.
[...]
>
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-04 17:46 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyon
On 2010-02-04 17:46 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will
understand
al
In article <00f4bb3a$0$15566$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com>,
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:57:59 -0500, Lou Pecora wrote:
>
> > Well, that looks a bit more complicated than I would like, but maybe
> > it's doing more stuff than I can grok. Here's what I needed and how I
> > did i
Steve Holden wrote:
Jeez, Steve, you're beginning to sound like some kind of fallacy
zealot... ;)
Death to all those who confuse agumentum ad populum with argumentum ad
verecundiam!!!
Yeah, what did the zealots ever do for us?
They produced Python?
.
.
.
Oh Python! Shut up!
--
http://
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand
all of Python in an hour.
With all respect,
On 2010-02-04 14:55 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand
all of Python in an hour.
With all respect, talking about a sub
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:57:59 -0500, Lou Pecora wrote:
> Well, that looks a bit more complicated than I would like, but maybe
> it's doing more stuff than I can grok. Here's what I needed and how I
> did it in Python:
[...]
> # Reading same list in:
> instr=fp.readline()
> inlist=eval(instr)
> x1,
On Feb 3, 3:39 pm, Steve Holden wrote:
> Robert Kern wrote:
> > On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
> >> I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand
> >> all of Python in an hour.
>
> > With all respect, talking about a subject without a reasonable chance o
Marius Gedminas writes:
> On Feb 4, 1:03 am, John Bokma wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>> > I can explain all of Python in an hour;
>>
>> OK, in that case I would say give it a go. Put it on YouTube, or write a
>> blog post about it (or post it here). I am sure you will help a lot of
>> peo
Marius Gedminas writes:
> On Feb 4, 1:03 am, John Bokma wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>> > I can explain all of Python in an hour;
>>
>> OK, in that case I would say give it a go. Put it on YouTube, or write a
>> blog post about it (or post it here). I am sure you will help a lot of
>> peo
In article <7x8wb9j4r2@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Lou Pecora writes:
> > after much noodling around and reading it hit me that I could just put
> > all that output of different types of variables into a list, hit it
> > with a repr() function to get a string version, and writ
In article <87eil1ddjp.fsf...@castleamber.com>,
John Bokma wrote:
> Lou Pecora writes:
>
> > That's a pretty accurate description of how I transitioned to Python
> > from C and Fortran.
>
> Not C, but C++ (but there are also C implementations): YAML, see:
> http://code.google.com/p/yaml-cpp/
On Feb 4, 1:03 am, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > I can explain all of Python in an hour;
>
> OK, in that case I would say give it a go. Put it on YouTube, or write a
> blog post about it (or post it here). I am sure you will help a lot of
> people that way.
Someone already did
"Timothy N. Tsvetkov" wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner
> > Python is much, much cleaner. I don't know how anyone can honestly say
> > Ruby is cleaner than Python.
>
> I developed on both (Python was first) and I think that ruby I
> very clean and maybe cleaner than Python.
>
> And you're wrong with bloc
Lou Pecora writes:
> That's a pretty accurate description of how I transitioned to Python
> from C and Fortran.
Not C, but C++ (but there are also C implementations): YAML, see:
http://code.google.com/p/yaml-cpp/wiki/HowToParseADocument
I use YAML now and then with Perl for both reading/writin
Robert Kern wrote:
> On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>> I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand
>> all of Python in an hour.
>
> With all respect, talking about a subject without a reasonable chance of
> your audience understanding the subject afte
Lou Pecora writes:
> after much noodling around and reading it hit me that I could just put
> all that output of different types of variables into a list, hit it
> with a repr() function to get a string version, and write the string
> to a file -- no formatting necessary-- three lines of code. Lat
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Feb 2, 9:11 pm, John Bokma wrote:
>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>> > I can explain, in an hour, every single feature of the Python language
>> > to an experienced programmer, all the way up to metaclasses,
>>
>> Either you're a hell of a talker, or I am far, far away
In article
<1944d953-25ad-440b-9317-a7a4b4de6...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
> I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand
> all of Python in an hour.
>
> Coming from perl to python, the big "aha!" moment was when I realized
> there wasn
On 2010-02-03 15:32 PM, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
I can explain all of Python in an hour; I doubt anyone will understand
all of Python in an hour.
With all respect, talking about a subject without a reasonable chance of your
audience understanding the subject afterwards is not explaining. It's
On Feb 2, 9:11 pm, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > I can explain, in an hour, every single feature of the Python language
> > to an experienced programmer, all the way up to metaclasses,
>
> Either you're a hell of a talker, or I am far, far away from being an
> experienced progr
On Jan 28, 2:29 am, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:47 am, Simon Brunning wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think Python is a little cleaner, but I'm sure you'd find Ruby fans
> > who'd argue the complete opposite.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> There's a lot of line noise in Ruby. How are you supposed
John Bokma writes:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:11:49 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>>>
I can explain, in an hour, every single feature of the Python language
to an experienced programmer, all the way up to metaclasses,
>>>
>>> Eit
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:11:49 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>>
>>> I can explain, in an hour, every single feature of the Python language
>>> to an experienced programmer, all the way up to metaclasses,
>>
>> Either you're a hell of a talker, o
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:11:49 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>
>> I can explain, in an hour, every single feature of the Python language
>> to an experienced programmer, all the way up to metaclasses,
>
> Either you're a hell of a talker, or I am far, far away from being an
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> On Feb 1, 6:36 pm, John Bokma wrote:
[..]
>> It should be $bar = \&foo
>> Your example actually calls foo...
>
> I rest my case. I've been programming perl professionally since 2000,
> and I still make stupid, newbie mistakes like that.
Uhm, in another post you wrot
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> I can explain, in an hour, every single feature of the Python language
> to an experienced programmer, all the way up to metaclasses,
Either you're a hell of a talker, or I am far, far away from being an
experienced programmer. It's advocacy like this, IMO, that keeps
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:23 am, "bartc" wrote:
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
One of the bad things with languages like perl and Ruby that call
without parentheses is that getting a function ref is not obvious.
You need even more syntax to do so. In perl:
foo(); # Call 'foo' with no arg
On Feb 2, 5:01 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 6:36 pm, John Bokma wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > > One of the bad things with languages like perl
>
> > FYI: the language is called Perl, the program that executes a Perl
> > program is called perl.
>
> > > without paren
Ben Finney wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
>
>> Compare with Python's syntax.
>>
>> # The only way to assign
>> a = b
>>
>> # The only way to call a function
>> b(...)
>>
>> # The only way to access a hash or array or string or tuple
>> b[...]
>
> For all of your examples, there are other ways
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> Compare with Python's syntax.
>
> # The only way to assign
> a = b
>
> # The only way to call a function
> b(...)
>
> # The only way to access a hash or array or string or tuple
> b[...]
For all of your examples, there are other ways supported. I do wish this
focus on
On Feb 1, 6:50 pm, Nobody wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:13:38 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > I judge a language's simplicity by how long it takes to explain the
> > complete language. That is, what minimal set of documentation do you
> > need to describe all of the language?
>
> That's not a
On Feb 2, 7:23 am, "bartc" wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > One of the bad things with languages like perl and Ruby that call
> > without parentheses is that getting a function ref is not obvious. You
> > need even more syntax to do so. In perl:
>
> > foo(); # Call 'foo' with no args.
>
On Feb 1, 6:36 pm, John Bokma wrote:
> Jonathan Gardner writes:
> > One of the bad things with languages like perl
>
> FYI: the language is called Perl, the program that executes a Perl
> program is called perl.
>
> > without parentheses is that getting a function ref is not obvious. You
> > need
On Feb 1, 6:21 pm, Nobody wrote:
>
> You don't need to know the entire language before you can use any of it
> (if you did, Python would be deader than a certain parrot; Python's dark
> corners are *really* dark).
>
I'm curious. What dark corners are you referring to? I can't think of
any. Especi
On Feb 2, 2:21 am, waku wrote:
>
> for writing new code, it's not necessarily that helpful to be *forced*
> to keep with strict indenting rules. in early development phases,
> code is often experimental, and parts of it may need to be blocked or
> unblocked as the codebase grows, and for experime
Jonathan Gardner wrote:
One of the bad things with languages like perl and Ruby that call
without parentheses is that getting a function ref is not obvious. You
need even more syntax to do so. In perl:
foo(); # Call 'foo' with no args.
$bar = foo; # Call 'foo; with no args, assign to '
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:58:34 +, tanix wrote:
[...]
> > The very idea of using a number of blanks to identify your block level
> > is as insane as it gets.
>
> Not at all. People do it all the time. The very idea of expecting people
> to count nested braces to identify
Nobody writes:
> A better metric is whether using N features has O(N) complexity, or O(N^2)
> (where you have to understand how each feature relates to each other
> feature) or even O(2^N) (where you have to understand every possible
> combination of interactions).
M. Felleisen wrote a paper tryi
Nobody writes:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:35:57 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>>> If it was common-place to use Curried functions and partial application in
>>> Python, you'd probably prefer "f a b c" to "f(a)(b)(c)" as well.
>>
>> That's just the point. It isn't common to play with curried fun
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:13:38 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> I judge a language's simplicity by how long it takes to explain the
> complete language. That is, what minimal set of documentation do you
> need to describe all of the language?
That's not a particularly good metric, IMHO.
A simple "
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> One of the bad things with languages like perl
FYI: the language is called Perl, the program that executes a Perl
program is called perl.
> without parentheses is that getting a function ref is not obvious. You
> need even more syntax to do so. In perl:
>
> foo();
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:35:57 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>> If it was common-place to use Curried functions and partial application in
>> Python, you'd probably prefer "f a b c" to "f(a)(b)(c)" as well.
>
> That's just the point. It isn't common to play with curried functions
> or monads or an
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, MRAB wrote:
> Nobody wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:36:32 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
for example, in if you have a function 'f' which takes two parameters to
call the function and get the result you use:
f 2 3
If you want the func
Nobody wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:36:32 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
for example, in if you have a function 'f' which takes two parameters to
call the function and get the result you use:
f 2 3
If you want the function itself you use:
f
How do you call a function of no arguments?
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:36:32 +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> for example, in if you have a function 'f' which takes two parameters to
>> call the function and get the result you use:
>>
>> f 2 3
>>
>> If you want the function itself you use:
>>
>>f
>
> How do you call a function of no ar
Jonathan Gardner writes:
> I judge a language's simplicity by how long it takes to explain the
> complete language. That is, what minimal set of documentation do you
> need to describe all of the language? With a handful of statements,
> and a very short list of operators, Python beats out every l
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> On Jan 31, 3:01 am, rantingrick wrote:
>> On Jan 30, 10:43 am, Nobody wrote:
>> > That's also true for most functional languages, e.g. Haskell and ML, as
>> > well as e.g. Tcl and most shells. Why require "f(x)" or "(f x)" if "f x"
>> > w
On Jan 31, 12:43 pm, Nobody wrote:
>
> If it was common-place to use Curried functions and partial application in
> Python, you'd probably prefer "f a b c" to "f(a)(b)(c)" as well.
>
That's just the point. It isn't common to play with curried functions
or monads or anything like that in computer
On Jan 31, 3:01 am, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:43 am, Nobody wrote:
>
> > That's also true for most functional languages, e.g. Haskell and ML, as
> > well as e.g. Tcl and most shells. Why require "f(x)" or "(f x)" if "f x"
> > will suffice?
>
> yuck! wrapping the arg list with parenthesis
On Jan 30, 8:43 am, Nobody wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:29:05 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> > Python is much, much cleaner. I don't know how anyone can honestly say
> > Ruby is cleaner than Python.
>
> I'm not familiar with Ruby, but most languages are cleaner than Python
> once you get beyo
Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/31/2010 7:25 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:40:36 -0800, Chris Rebert wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>>> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800, Ed Keith wrote:
> In most functional languages you just name
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:43:56 -0800, alex23 wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> You're using that term wrong. It looks to me that you don't actually
>>> know what a straw man argument is. A straw man argument is when
>>> somebody responds to a deliberately weakened or i
Chris Rebert writes:
> get_popular_name would have the type: IO () -> IO String
I don't know if it makes the explanation any clearer, but I think that
isn't quite right. The Python version would have type
String -> IO String. The parameterless Haskell version would just be an
I/O action, with
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:43:56 -0800, alex23 wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> You're using that term wrong. It looks to me that you don't actually
>> know what a straw man argument is. A straw man argument is when
>> somebody responds to a deliberately weakened or invalid argument as if
>> it had
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:22:36 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> Terry Reedy writes:
>>> Three of you gave essentially identical answers, but I still do not see
>>> how given something like
>>>
>>> def f(): return 1
>>>
>>> I differentiate betwee
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> You're using that term wrong. It looks to me that you don't actually know
> what a straw man argument is. A straw man argument is when somebody
> responds to a deliberately weakened or invalid argument as if it had been
> made by their opponent.
Jeez, Steve, you're beginn
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:30:15 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> While braces might be considered redundant they are not when for one
> reason or another formatting is lost or done incorrectly.
I've heard this argument before, and I don't buy it. Why should we
expect the editor to co
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> How would Haskell coders write it? Something like this?
>
> def get_popular_name(url):
> data = fetch url
> names = parse data
> name = choose name 1
> return name
The syntax and types would be different, but ok, something like that.
> name = get_popular
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:53:16 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> You don't have to buy my argument, I am not selling it.
It's a figure of speech. You are making an argument others have made
before, and I don't accept the validity of the argument.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/p
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:22:36 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Terry Reedy writes:
>> Three of you gave essentially identical answers, but I still do not see
>> how given something like
>>
>> def f(): return 1
>>
>> I differentiate between 'function object at address xxx' and 'int 1'
>> objects.
>
> In
Terry Reedy writes:
> Three of you gave essentially identical answers, but I still do not
> see how given something like
>
> def f(): return 1
>
> I differentiate between 'function object at address xxx' and 'int 1'
> objects.
In the languages they are talking about, there is no such thing as a
f
On 1/31/2010 7:25 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:40:36 -0800, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800, Ed Keith wrote:
In most functional languages you just name a function to access it and
you do it A
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:47:42 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:47:08 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>>>
An editor can correct the indenting of the braces example but can't
with this one.
if x:
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:47:42 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano writes:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:47:08 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> An editor can correct the indenting of the braces example but can't
>>> with this one.
>>>
>>> if x:
>>> if y:
>>> foo()
>>> else:
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:50:50 -0800, Chris Rebert wrote:
> How do you call a function of no arguments?
It's not really a function in that case, it's just a named constant.
(Recall that functions don't/can't have side-effec
--- On Sun, 1/31/10, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> From: Steven D'Aprano
> Subject: Re: Python and Ruby
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Sunday, January 31, 2010, 8:22 PM
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:50:50 -0800,
> Chris Rebert wrote:
>
> >>>>
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:50:50 -0800, Chris Rebert wrote:
How do you call a function of no arguments?
>>>
>>> It's not really a function in that case, it's just a named constant.
>>> (Recall that functions don't/can't have side-effects.)
>>
>>
> time.time(), random.random()
>> (1264983502.7
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:47:08 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> An editor can correct the indenting of the braces example but can't with
>> this one.
>>
>> if x:
>> if y:
>> foo()
>> else:
>> bar()
>>
>> While braces might be considered redundant th
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:40:36 -0800, Chris Rebert wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800, Ed Keith wrote:
In most functional languages you just name a function to acc
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:47:08 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
>
>> An editor can correct the indenting of the braces example but can't with
>> this one.
>>
>> if x:
>> if y:
>> foo()
>> else:
>> bar()
>>
>> While braces might be considered redundant th
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:40:36 -0800, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800, Ed Keith wrote:
>>> In most functional languages you just name a function to access it and
>>> you do it ALL the time.
>>>
>>> for example, in
--- On Sun, 1/31/10, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> From: Steven D'Aprano
> Subject: Re: Python and Ruby
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Sunday, January 31, 2010, 5:36 PM
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800,
> Ed Keith wrote:
>
> > In most functional la
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800, Ed Keith wrote:
>
>> In most functional languages you just name a function to access it and
>> you do it ALL the time.
>>
>> for example, in if you have a function 'f' which takes two parameters to
>> call the function and get the res
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800, Ed Keith wrote:
>> In most functional languages you just name a function to access it and
>> you do it ALL the time.
>>
>> for example, in if you have a function 'f' which takes two parameters to
>> call
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:47:08 -0600, John Bokma wrote:
> An editor can correct the indenting of the braces example but can't with
> this one.
>
> if x:
> if y:
> foo()
> else:
> bar()
>
> While braces might be considered redundant they are not when for one
> reason or ano
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:28:41 -0800, Ed Keith wrote:
> In most functional languages you just name a function to access it and
> you do it ALL the time.
>
> for example, in if you have a function 'f' which takes two parameters to
> call the function and get the result you use:
>
> f 2 3
>
> If y
Nobody writes:
> Configurable tab stops in a text editor is one of those "features" that
> differentiates a "coder" from a software engineer. A coder implements it
> because it's easy to implement, without giving a moment's thought to the
> wider context (such as: how to communicate the non-stand
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:01:51 -0800, rantingrick wrote:
>> That's also true for most functional languages, e.g. Haskell and ML, as
>> well as e.g. Tcl and most shells. Why require "f(x)" or "(f x)" if "f x"
>> will suffice?
>
> yuck! wrapping the arg list with parenthesis (python way) makes the mo
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:58:34 +, tanix wrote:
>>I'm not familiar with Ruby, but most languages are cleaner than Python
>>once you get beyond the "10-minute introduction" stage.
>
> I'd have to agree. The only ones that beat Python in that department are
> Javascript and PHP. Plus CSS and HTML
--- On Sun, 1/31/10, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> From: Steven D'Aprano
> Subject: Re: Python and Ruby
> To: python-list@python.org
> Date: Sunday, January 31, 2010, 6:35 AM
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:01:51 -0800,
> rantingrick wrote:
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:43
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 03:01:51 -0800, rantingrick wrote:
> On Jan 30, 10:43 am, Nobody wrote:
>
>> That's also true for most functional languages, e.g. Haskell and ML, as
>> well as e.g. Tcl and most shells. Why require "f(x)" or "(f x)" if "f
>> x" will suffice?
>
> yuck! wrapping the arg list w
On Jan 30, 10:43 am, Nobody wrote:
> That's also true for most functional languages, e.g. Haskell and ML, as
> well as e.g. Tcl and most shells. Why require "f(x)" or "(f x)" if "f x"
> will suffice?
yuck! wrapping the arg list with parenthesis (python way) makes the
most sense. Its to easy to m
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, tanix wrote:
> The very idea of using a number of blanks to identify your block level
> is as insane as it gets. First of all, combinations of blanks and tabs,
> depending on how your ide is setup to expand tabs, may get you bugs,
> you'd never imagine in your wil
On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:58:34 +, tanix wrote:
> In article , Nobody
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:29:05 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> There's a lot of "magic" in Ruby as well. For instance, function calls
>>> are made without parentheses.
>>
>>That's also true for most functional l
--- On Sat, 1/30/10, Nobody wrote:
> From: Nobody
> > Python is much, much cleaner. I don't know how anyone
> can honestly say
> > Ruby is cleaner than Python.
>
> I'm not familiar with Ruby, but most languages are cleaner
> than Python
> once you get beyond the "10-minute introduction" stage.
In article , Nobody
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:29:05 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of "magic" in Ruby as well. For instance, function calls are
>> made without parentheses.
>
>That's also true for most functional languages, e.g. Haskell and ML, as
>well as e.g. Tcl and mos
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:29:05 -0800, Jonathan Gardner wrote:
> There's a lot of "magic" in Ruby as well. For instance, function calls are
> made without parentheses.
That's also true for most functional languages, e.g. Haskell and ML, as
well as e.g. Tcl and most shells. Why require "f(x)" or "(f
On Thursday 28 January 2010 08:11 AM, rantingrick wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:31 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
To add to that, Python is the type of language where experienced
programmers can pick it up by reading code, and newbies won't get
hopelessly lost. I've taught less-than-formal introductory
On Jan 27, 5:31 pm, Jonathan Gardner
wrote:
> To add to that, Python is the type of language where experienced
> programmers can pick it up by reading code, and newbies won't get
> hopelessly lost. I've taught less-than-formal introductory programming
> classes to people who are new to programmin
On Jan 27, 6:56 am, Roald de Vries wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jean Guillaume Pyraksos wrote:
>
> > What are the arguments for choosing Python against Ruby
> > for introductory programming?
>
> I think the main difference is in culture, especially for
> *introductory* programming.
To
On Jan 27, 5:47 am, Simon Brunning wrote:
>
> I think Python is a little cleaner, but I'm sure you'd find Ruby fans
> who'd argue the complete opposite.
>
Are you sure about that?
There's a lot of line noise in Ruby. How are you supposed to pronounce
"@@"? What about "{|..| ... }"?
There's a lo
On Jan 27, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jean Guillaume Pyraksos wrote:
What are the arguments for choosing Python against Ruby
for introductory programming ? Python has no provisions
for tail recursion, Ruby is going to... So what ?
Thanks,
I think the main difference is in culture, especially for
*in
2010/1/27 Jean Guillaume Pyraksos :
> What are the arguments for choosing Python against Ruby
> for introductory programming ?
Frankly, either would be a good choice.
I think Python is a little cleaner, but I'm sure you'd find Ruby fans
who'd argue the complete opposite. Both have good ecosystems
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
