On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 01:12:12 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#,
On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
C does not natively provide garbage collection, or exceptions, or many
other features. But that doesn't make it *impossible* to use these
features in C, it just makes them *inconvenient and difficult*.
Steven said -
In a very real sense, Python is just a convenience wrapper around a
bunch of C functions to provide OOP idioms, garbage collection, dynamic
typing, runtime introspection, exceptions, and similar.
I can't really disagree with you in a factual sense, but somehow it doesn't
really
Paul Rubin said:
FYI, there is real though imprecise garbage collection for C. Web
search for Boehm garbage collection should find more info
Very interesting. This wasn't around the last time I launched a C/C++ project
from scratch. Thanks for the tip.
I have to admit, off the top of my head
On 26/10/2013 20:24, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Paul Rubin said:
FYI, there is real though imprecise garbage collection for C. Web
search for Boehm garbage collection should find more info
Very interesting. This wasn't around the last time I launched a C/C++ project
from scratch. Thanks for the
Le mardi 15 octobre 2013 23:00:29 UTC+2, Mark Lawrence a écrit :
On 15/10/2013 21:11, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Le lundi 14 octobre 2013 21:18:59 UTC+2, John Nagle a écrit :
[...]
No, Python went through the usual design screwups. Look at how
On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java?
Please. No exceptions is huge. No garbage collection
On 25/10/2013 07:14, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip all the double spaced crap - please read, digest and action this
https://wiki.python.org/moin/GoogleGroupsPython]
Use one of the coding schemes endorsed by Unicode.
As I personally know nothing about unicode for the unenlightened such
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 19:05:09 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote:
On 25/10/2013 07:14, wxjmfa...@gmail.com wrote:
Use one of the coding schemes endorsed by Unicode.
As I personally know nothing about unicode for the unenlightened such as
myself please explain this statement with respect to the
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
[...]
The actual syntax would be
[object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
I don't get how to map that to Python's syntax.
On 10/23/13 4:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
[...]
The actual syntax would be
[object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
I
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
The actual syntax would be
[object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
I don't get how to map that to Python's syntax.
It's roughly morally equivalent to
object.method(arg1,
On 2013-10-23, Ned Batchelder n...@nedbatchelder.com wrote:
On 10/23/13 4:16 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
[...]
The actual syntax would be
[object
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz writes:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 09:38:16 +0200, Lele Gaifax wrote:
The actual syntax would be
[object method: arg1 withSomething: arg2 withSomethingElse: arg3]
I don't get how to map that to Python's syntax.
It's roughly
On Monday, October 21, 2013 9:29:34 PM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Challenge: give some examples of things which you can do in Python, but
cannot do *at all* in C, C++, C#, Java?
Ummm... hmmm let me try here...
string =
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 2:19 PM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Guess-who said:
but it's ugly, by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
easily maintained.
OK, I see the problem. What you call ugly is
Roy Smith r...@panix.com writes:
You missed the ever-so-special Objective C syntax:
[object method arg1 withSomething arg2 withSomethingElse arg3]
I'm sure I got that slightly wrong. I don't do Objective C, and my eyes
glaze over every time I have to read it.
The actual syntax would be
rusi said :
You continue to not attribute quotes.
Sorry, I'll try to be better about this all-important aspect of sharing
knowledge.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steven wrote:
The world is much bigger than just the C family of languages.
And even within that space, the original authors of C left plenty of
room for debate/improvement. In at least two dimensions (object
oriented programming, and memory management), various C descendants
have tried
I've written a fair bit of code in pure C, C++, C#, Java and now getting there
in Python.
The difference between C# and Java is fairly minor.
The others have large and significant differences between them. Garbage
collectors or not is huge. Exceptions or not is huge. Dynamic or static typing
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or ugly in some
languages, so they create new languages with different
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Peter Cacioppi
peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote:
I've written a fair bit of code in pure C, C++, C#, Java and now getting
there in Python.
The difference between C# and Java is fairly minor.
The others have large and significant differences between them.
On 21/10/2013 07:44, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I've written a fair bit of code in pure C, C++, C#, Java and now getting there
in Python.
The difference between C# and Java is fairly minor.
The others have large and significant differences between them. Garbage
collectors or not is huge.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 21/10/2013 07:44, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
[ a whole lot of stuff ]
As my crystal ball is once again being mended, would you please be kind
enough to tell all of us who and exactly what you're replying to.
Mine is
On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context.
Because it's written in (say) C++ in an object orientated style, so by
rewriting it using assembler in a procedural style
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context.
Because it's written in (say) C++ in an
On 21/10/2013 08:43, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On 21/10/2013 08:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
I use Google Groups and it sucks, so I delete all the context because
then nobody can see how much it sucks at showing context.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 23:44:27 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
This is just one language feature. I could go on and on. The idea that
the differences between these languages is just syntactic sugar and
aesthetics is so profoundly misguided that I can only assume that this
misconception was
Python is the Best!
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate trolling.
One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or ugly in some
languages, so they create new languages with different syntax to make
those
Are you suggesting Advertising is the Best language there is?
# After many years, I agree not, but what to may...
def If I do Something do, you not react():
IsMySyntaxNotCorrect()
CanINotCorrectMyGrammaticalMistakesAndSeekAcceptance():
# The most arguable
On Monday, October 21, 2013 2:13:52 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate trolling.
The same could be said for this below… but…
One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
useful programming idioms
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or ugly in some
languages, so they create new languages with different
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:43:52 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Specifically the following seems so misguided as to be deliberate
trolling.
One of the reasons multiple languages exist is because people find that
useful programming idioms and styles are *hard to use* or ugly in some
languages, so
but it's ugly, by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
easily maintained.
OK, I see the problem. What you call ugly is really just objectively bad.
Ugliness and beauty are subjective qualities that can't really be debated on a
deep level. Like I mentioned in other post, I find
On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 8:25:58 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Guess-who said:
but it's ugly, by which I mean it is hard to use, error prone, and not
easily maintained.
OK, I see the problem. What you call ugly is really just objectively bad.
You continue to not attribute quotes.
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:26:02 -0700, rusi wrote:
On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:02:24 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of
object-oriented programming.
Yes that is what is asserted by
In article 52648c54$0$29981$c3e8da3$54964...@news.astraweb.com,
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
According to
some, Java, which has many low-level machine primitive types, is an
object-oriented language, while Python, which has no machine primitives
and where
On Monday, October 21, 2013 7:51:12 AM UTC+5:30, Roy Smith wrote:
In article
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
According to
some, Java, which has many low-level machine primitive types, is an
object-oriented language, while Python, which has no machine primitives
and where every value is an
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:49:02 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I don't know if I want to step into the flames here,
Go on, be bold! You learn a lot by making bold claims and having them
shot down. Or at least, I did. Now I know everything, so I can afford to
be humble.
*wink*
but my
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:49:02 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I don't know if I want to step into the flames here,
Go on, be bold! You learn a lot by making bold claims and having them
shot down.
Yes,
I think the author goes a little too far to claim that strong
weak are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems
I can live with that, actually.
The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs.
dynamic typing, procedural vs. functional, no objects vs. object
On 18/10/2013 21:32, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I think the author goes a little too far to claim that strong
weak are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems
I can live with that, actually.
The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs.
dynamic typing,
give me practicality beats purity any day of the week :)
Without some notion of theory you will end up with php instead of python (see
how I looped the thread back around on track ... you're welcome).
If you think php is no worse than python for building reliable, readable code
bases than
On Saturday, October 19, 2013 2:02:24 AM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of
object-oriented programming.
Yes that is what is asserted by
http://www-public.int-evry.fr/~gibson/Teaching/CSC7322/ReadingMaterial/Wegner87.pdf
-- a
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
3 examples were given (1) python's C implementation (2) OS/2 (3) Linux kernel
About 2 I dont know anything though I believe gdk and gobject are more
contemporary examples.
Good point, I believe you're right there. I haven't
I don't know if I want to step into the flames here, but my understanding has
always been that in the absence of polymorphism the best you can do is object
based programming instead of object oriented programming.
Object based programming is a powerful step forward. The insight that by
On 17/10/2013 01:53, Mark Janssen wrote:
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
You must be one of the
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Peter Cacioppi
peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know if I want to step into the flames here, but my understanding has
always been that in the absence of polymorphism the best you can do is
object based programming instead of object oriented programming.
What you've said here is that without polymorphism, you can't have
polymorphism. :)
Respectfully, no. I refer to the distinction between object based and object
oriented programming. Wikipedia's entry is consistent with my understanding
(not to argue by wiki-authority, but the terminology
Am 17.10.13 09:23, schrieb Peter Cacioppi:
Do you have a clean little example of polymorphism being
mocked in a reasonable way with pure C? There are many nice
object-based C projects floating around, but real polymorphism? I
think you can't do it without some bizarre work-arounds, but I'd be
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Peter Cacioppi
peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote:
Respectfully, no. I refer to the distinction between object based and object
oriented programming. Wikipedia's entry is consistent with my understanding
(not to argue by wiki-authority, but the terminology here
rusi writes:
However - to speak a little for Mark's perspective (from a hopefully
more educated background): There's a fine line between laboriously
simulating a feature and properly supporting it:
- C has arbitrary precision arithmetic -- use gmp library
- C is a functional language -- use
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:19:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Object oriented programming takes things further, most significantly by
introducing the idea that the object reference you are referencing might be a
run time dependent sub-class. Even Python, which isn't strongly
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:09:59 PM UTC+5:30, rusi wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 12:19:02 PM UTC+5:30, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Object oriented programming takes things further, most significantly by
introducing the idea that the object reference you are referencing might be a
On 2013-10-17, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
Are
Prior to that [the '70s] you have punch cards where there's no meaningful
definition of parsing because there are no tokens.
I have no idea what you mean by this. [...]
You seem drawn to sweeping statements about the current state and history of
computer science, but then make claims like
On 17/10/2013 15:49, Mark Janssen wrote:
Prior to that [the '70s] you have punch cards where there's no meaningful
definition of parsing because there are no tokens.
I have no idea what you mean by this. [...]
You seem drawn to sweeping statements about the current state and history of
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that
point, I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit
lexer.
Peter Cacioppi peter.cacio...@gmail.com writes:
What you've said here is that without polymorphism, you can't have
polymorphism. :)
Respectfully, no. I refer to the distinction between object based and object
oriented programming. Wikipedia's entry is consistent with my understanding
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not having the same thoughts, yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
and not have these sloppy understandings everywhere. You dig?
Heh Mark I am really sorry. I
On 17/10/2013 18:32, rusi wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not having the same thoughts, yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such
terminology and not have these sloppy understandings everywhere.
You dig?
On 17/10/2013 18:32, rusi wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not having the same thoughts, yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
and not have these sloppy understandings everywhere. You dig?
The first C++ compilers were just preprocessors that translated into
pure C code ...
I agree with this.
the C code was reasonably clear, not really convoluted, so you would have
been able to write it yourself.
I disagree with this. My sense of C is that IF you are relying on
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not having the same thoughts, yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such terminology
and not have these sloppy
On 10/17/2013 2:49 AM, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Even Python, which isn't strongly typed,
Python objects have a definite type/class. It is fixed for instances of
builtins. If that is not 'strong', the word has no meaning.
manages polymorphism by allowing the self argument to a sub-class of
On 17/10/2013 07:49, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
I don't know if I want to step into the flames here,
Even Python, which isn't strongly typed
Yeah right.
--
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Most poems rhyme,
But this one doesn't.
Mark Lawrence
--
My bad, Python is dynamically typed, but also strongly typed.
But I still say it has language features that specifically support
polymorphism, which is why true OO can be developed in Python in a readable way.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 10/17/13 3:49 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM, rusi rustompm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not having the same thoughts, yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down
On 10/17/2013 01:57 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
Read and listen more. Write and say less.
Mark Janssen has no interest in learning. From a thread long-ago:
Mark Janssen wrote:
Ethan Furman wrote:
Mark Janssen wrote:
Really?
-- int=five
-- [int(i) for i in [1,2,3]]
TypeError: str is
In article cb5c412c-7d41-4778-acc6-c82200848...@googlegroups.com,
Peter Cacioppi peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote:
OTOH, I've seen object-based C development projects (I.e. where you could
tell what function was being called at compile time) that are quite readable.
If you can tell what
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Roy Smith r...@panix.com wrote:
In article cb5c412c-7d41-4778-acc6-c82200848...@googlegroups.com,
Peter Cacioppi peter.cacio...@gmail.com wrote:
OTOH, I've seen object-based C development projects (I.e. where you could
tell what function was being called at
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 07:49:52 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point,
I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
Why stop there? If you
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Ethan Furman et...@stoneleaf.us wrote:
On 10/17/2013 01:57 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
Read and listen more. Write and say less.
Mark Janssen has no interest in learning. From a thread long-ago:
Mark Janssen wrote:
Ethan Furman wrote:
Mark Janssen
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:24:58 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
Anyway, what I sought to prove was that polymorphic object oriented code
can be written in C or any other language.
The proof of this is that any Turing-complete language can simulate any
other language. Obviously the *difficulty* can
It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point,
I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
Why stop there? If you go back far enough, you've got Babbage with his
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:59:07 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
-- int=five
-- [int(i) for i in [1,2,3]]
TypeError: str is not callable
Now how are you going to get the original int type back?
Trivially easy:
py int
type 'int'
py int = five # Oops!
py int(42.5)
Traceback (most recent call
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:49:02 -0700, Peter Cacioppi wrote:
Even Python, which isn't strongly typed
I see that in a later message you have stepped away from that
misconception, but I think it is well worth reading this essay:
https://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 11:14:29 PM UTC+5:30, MRAB wrote:
On 17/10/2013 18:32, rusi wrote:
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 1:56:27 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Yes, well clearly we are not having the same thoughts, yet the
purpose of the academic establishment is to pin down such
On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:38:30 AM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that point,
I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit lexer.
Why stop
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:08:30 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
It's like this. No matter how you cut it, you're going to get back to
the computers where you load instructions with switches. At that
point, I'll be very much looking in anticipation to your binary-digit
lexer.
Why stop there? If
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
One thing he missed is that there are untyped languages where everything
is the same type. If everything is the same type, that's equivalent to
there being no types at all. Examples include TCL and
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 15:12:36 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
One thing he missed is that there are untyped languages where
everything is the same type. If everything is the same type, that's
equivalent
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info wrote:
I don't know about TCL, but in Hypertalk, when I said everything is a
string, I meant it. If you want a list of strings, you create one big
string using some delimiter (usually spaces, commas or
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 2013-10-15, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, well 40 years ago they didn't have parsers.
That seems an odd thing to say. People were assembling and compiling
computer programs long before
Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
things in our minds.
That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
typedefs that make it a thing for the computer.
Speaking as a C programmer, no. We have explicit typedefs to create new
labels for
On Wednesday, October 16, 2013 11:27:03 PM UTC+5:30, zipher wrote:
Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
things in our minds.
That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
typedefs that make it a thing for the computer.
Speaking as a C
On 2013-10-16, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Grant Edwards invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:
On 2013-10-15, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, well 40 years ago they didn't have parsers.
That seems an odd thing to say. People
On 2013-10-16, Mark Janssen dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
Types on the other hand correspond to our classifications and so are
things in our minds.
That is not how a C programmer views it. They have explicit
typedefs that make it a thing for the computer.
Speaking as a C programmer, no.
Who uses object abstraction in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
I wonder if you've heard of something called linux?
http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/
If not, Linux, how about Python?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
Skip
--
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Skip Montanaro s...@pobox.com wrote:
Who uses object abstraction in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
I wonder if you've heard of something called linux?
http://lwn.net/Articles/444910/
If not, Linux, how about Python?
Who uses object abstraction in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
If not, Linux, how about Python?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
object oriented and mostly C. It's done with SOM, so it's
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Mark Janssen
dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
But, here it is significant that the user /consumer (i.e. *at the
workstation* mind you) is *making* the object because thier visual
system turns it into one. Otherwise, at the C-level, I'm guessing
it's normal C
On 17/10/2013 3:57 AM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Who uses object abstraction in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he
was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by
examining his wives' mouths. --
On 10/16/13 8:13 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Who uses object abstraction in C? No one. That's why C++ was invented.
If not, Linux, how about Python?
http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/e2a411a429d6/Objects
Or huge slabs of the OS/2 Presentation Manager, which is entirely
object oriented and
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
--
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington
--
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Mark Janssen
dreamingforw...@gmail.com wrote:
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:17:57 AM UTC+5:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
On 10/16/13 8:13 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
Who uses object abstraction in C? No one. That's why C++ was
invented.
Examples from
1. Linux Kernel
2. Python
3. OS/2
But, here it is significant that the user
On 10/16/13 8:53 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years
ago. Your input is rubbish.
The mention of punched
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:53:22 -0700, Mark Janssen wrote:
And your earlier idea that punched cards didn't have tokens is wildly
ignorant of the state of software and languages 50 years ago.
Please tell me how you parsed tokens with binary switches 50 years ago.
Your input is rubbish.
Mark,
1 - 100 of 140 matches
Mail list logo
