Mailing List Archive

Christian Gollwitzer schreef op 16/02/2021 om 8:25:
> Am 15.02.21 um 21:37 schrieb Roel Schroeven:
>>
>> So your claim is that your compiler is able to, or will be able to,
>> compile any language just by specifying a small schema file. Great!
>>
>> Do you maybe have a proof-of-concept? A simple language with a simple
>> schema file to test the basic workings of your compiler,
>
> Here is the git repo:
>
> https://github.com/i42output/neos
>
> under languages/ you'll find different schema files.

I saw that, and I saw the schema files. I had a look at the one for C,
because I don't know the first thing about Ada, and it's not nearly
enough to describe even the tiniest subset of C. And I saw the example
session he posted here, where he supposedly compiles something, but
doesn't even run it. It looked like that compilation did nothing but
folding and folding and folding. And he didn't run it!

So it looks like that's the status of the project now: a compilation
step that does /something/, but apparently doesn't result in anything
runnable. And some work-in-progress (seemingly) schema files, but
nothing concrete yet.

But I wanted to give Mr Flibble to benefit of the doubt, and asked more
explicitly about the status of the project. Apparently I was too late,
Mr Flibble was already banned, but I didn't know that yet.

I've thougt about downloading the whole thing and trying to build it.
But I'd have to install Visual Studio 2019 first and probably some
dependencies. It didn't seem worth the effort.


Regards,
Roel

--
"Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a
friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger."
-- Franklin P. Jones

Roel Schroeven

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 21/02/16 11:03AM, Alan Gauld wrote:

>Python v1 was a good teaching language. v2 complicated it a bit
>but it was still usable. v3 is no longer a good teaching language
>(unless maybe you are teaching CompSci at university.)

[...]

>And that's just one example, the language is now full of meta goodness
>that makes it incomprehensible to beginners. In a teaching environment,
>with a teacher present to answer questions, it's probably usable,
>but for a self guided course it's increasingly inscrutable.

Hmm. I'm not sure I can agree, Alan. My son took to Python 3 like a duck to
water. Occasionally he has had questions for me, but, for the most part, he
has been entirely on his own with no issues. He now has several projects that
others are using, including a significant update to someone else's project he
was interested online to both update the Python and Qt.

Yes, there is a ton of meta-goodness in Python, but most of it can be ignored
to be able to *just use it*. My wife is using Python 3 in a robotics class
she teaches and her high school students find it accessible. AP computer
science second semester uses Python. I really don't think it is much of a
problem for most people. Of course on the Tutor list there often seems to be
some greatly puzzled people, but I think their issues stem from *never* having
tried to do anything even remotely technical other than clicking around in
the GUI programs they have become comfortable with.

--
Wishing you only the best,

boB Stepp
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 2021-02-14 00:52:43 +0000, Alan Gauld via Python-list wrote:
> On 14/02/2021 00:07, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > The neos Python implementation will not be dealing
> > with Python byte code in any form whatsoever.
>
> Ok but what do you do with the disassembler module?

What do PyPy, Jython, IronPython etc. do with the disassembler module?
My guess is that they simply don't implement it. It's tightly coupled to
the CPython implementation and useless on any other implementation. A
disassembler module for their respective bytecode or machine language
might be useful, but that wouldn't be compatible with CPython's
disassembler in input nor output.

hp

--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | hjp@hjp.at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"

On 16/02/2021 22:23, boB Stepp wrote:

>> And that's just one example, the language is now full of meta goodness
>> that makes it incomprehensible to beginners.
>
> Hmm. I'm not sure I can agree, Alan. My son took to Python 3 like a duck to
> water.

That's interesting. I knew you were teaching him but not
how he got on. Good for him.

My comments stem from the feedback emails I get from my tutorial.
People get messages like "foo is not an iterable" or references
to range objects and such and it confuses them.

I never got those kinds of messages for the v.1 tutorial...

> Yes, there is a ton of meta-goodness in Python, but most of it can be ignored
> to be able to *just use it*.

But the problem I see is that you can't ignore it because
it bubbles to the surface in error messages. And if you
don't know what it means you don't know that you can ignore it!
That's where a teacher/mentor comes in, they can say "Oh that's OK
just ignore it!" but if you are on your own you think
"Oh no! What do I do now?"

But as I say, I can't find anything better so I'll stick
with it for now.

--
Alan G
Author of the Learn to Program web site
http://www.alan-g.me.uk/
http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld
Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Greetings list,

> Even if Python is my choice language for personal projects, I am not
certain it
is the right language to use in a classroom context.

This sums the view of most teachers in my country. In here for A level
at Cambridge for Computer Studies you can choose either Java, or VB or
Python

The teachers' logic seems to tell them that VB is the simplest of all and
more fitted for students. Since we organise the local Python usergroup
<https://www.pymug.com>,
we have been encouraging the adoption of Python. This happens from
experience when teachers think for students, they think student will think
like that etc

The way schools examinations are set up, learning programming is a bore.
Programming requires experimentation and projects. The students must be
permitted to explore the wide deep sea that is Python. On one of my projects
on Github, i have a toy language, someone from Slovakia (14 years old)
built
an IDE for it, what was needed was only guidance where he was stuck.

The hurdle with Python if any is the setting up and getting the command
'python'
to appear in the terminal, which is very easy to get up and running
nowadays.

When i was in high school, i did not take Computer Studies, but was
learning programming
on my own, including Python. The irony is that my friends who were learning
Python
got disgusted with it. Loops and functions turned out to be hard for them.
That's because
learning for the exam makes you learn the language close to theory. Some
commandline
stuffs and some numbers stuffs surely is not exiting. Mastery comes with
projects, exciting ones.
Then whatever the syllabus requires becomes easy. It's a means to an end
rather than the end
in itself.

The teachers' reaction is a reaction to the design of the syllabus. The
folks seem to think that let's
water it down to a very theoretical approach, strike out practise, strike
out the fun out of it and
sure the students will find it easier. Since effort is disliked by humans,
less effort in learning programming
will make students happy.

Then, if it was no Python at that time, it might be no Python for life.
With that mindset ongoing,
those students think they know Python, they studied it, but they missed the
whole thing. Forest,
trees and leaves. They know only the color of the sign board leading to the
place.

Kind Regards,

Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
about <https://compileralchemy.github.io/> | blog
<https://www.pythonkitchen.com>
github <https://github.com/Abdur-RahmaanJ>
Mauritius
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 16/02/2021 21:22, Tarjei Bærland via Python-list wrote:

> To me, it depends on what you want out of including programming in
> mathematics education.

That's a really important subclass distinction.
If programming is seen as an adjunct to math then the aims
can be simplified considerably since you are only interested
in pure computation. Things like networking, interfacing
to peripherals and the like can be ignored.
Likewise you probably don't care about creating large projects wit
multiple files etc.

With those constraints there are probably better languages
than python. You mention Logo and I had fun with that back
in the 80s and early 90s. But ultimately it wasn't suitable
for the kind of real-world programming I needed.

That's why I chose python for my tutorial. Its not only
teachable at a basic level but it is actually usable on
larger, real-world type projects once you've learned it.
You never need to throw away your skills.

> If the aim is to quickly get the students to "be creative" with
> programming by themselves, my feeling is that Python is too unwieldy for
> a beginner.

Don't underestimate the interactive prompt. It gives instant
feedback and is moire usable for beginners than most Lisp-style
REPLs.

Logo works too of course. But almost anything you can do in
Logo you can do almost as easily in Python. Be it list
handling or turtle graphics.

> minutes. They get the feeling of designing their own computational
> procedure much quicker than in Python. (Yes, of course, the introductory
> excercises in Python are a bit more advanced than "add two numbers".)

But they don't need to be. My tutor starts off with precisely that...

> I am honestly not sure what quite what my feelings are regarding this,
> perhaps Python is the best of all possible options.

Its a good compromise. Its got faults (see my other post!) but
I haven't found anything clearly better.

--
Alan G
Author of the Learn to Program web site
http://www.alan-g.me.uk/
http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld
Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Hi,



On Tue, Feb 16, 2021, 8:15 PM Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer <arj.python@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Greetings list,
>
> > Even if Python is my choice language for personal projects, I am not
> certain it
> is the right language to use in a classroom context.
>
> This sums the view of most teachers in my country. In here for A level
> at Cambridge for Computer Studies you can choose either Java, or VB or
> Python
>
> The teachers' logic seems to tell them that VB is the simplest of all and
> more fitted for students. Since we organise the local Python usergroup
> <https://www.pymug.com>,
> we have been encouraging the adoption of Python. This happens from
> experience when teachers think for students, they think student will think
> like that etc
>

How old are the teachers?
And is it for school or university?


Thank you.


> The way schools examinations are set up, learning programming is a bore.
> Programming requires experimentation and projects. The students must be
> permitted to explore the wide deep sea that is Python. On one of my
> projects
> on Github, i have a toy language, someone from Slovakia (14 years old)
> built
> an IDE for it, what was needed was only guidance where he was stuck.
>
> The hurdle with Python if any is the setting up and getting the command
> 'python'
> to appear in the terminal, which is very easy to get up and running
> nowadays.
>
> When i was in high school, i did not take Computer Studies, but was
> learning programming
> on my own, including Python. The irony is that my friends who were learning
> Python
> got disgusted with it. Loops and functions turned out to be hard for them.
> That's because
> learning for the exam makes you learn the language close to theory. Some
> commandline
> stuffs and some numbers stuffs surely is not exiting. Mastery comes with
> projects, exciting ones.
> Then whatever the syllabus requires becomes easy. It's a means to an end
> rather than the end
> in itself.
>
> The teachers' reaction is a reaction to the design of the syllabus. The
> folks seem to think that let's
> water it down to a very theoretical approach, strike out practise, strike
> out the fun out of it and
> sure the students will find it easier. Since effort is disliked by humans,
> less effort in learning programming
> will make students happy.
>
> Then, if it was no Python at that time, it might be no Python for life.
> With that mindset ongoing,
> those students think they know Python, they studied it, but they missed the
> whole thing. Forest,
> trees and leaves. They know only the color of the sign board leading to the
> place.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer
> about <https://compileralchemy.github.io/> | blog
> <https://www.pythonkitchen.com>
> github <https://github.com/Abdur-RahmaanJ>
> Mauritius
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Greetings,

age: After university to retirement
level: school, A Level is high school, not university
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Dennis made the interesting comment "... Python has too much built in ..."

I understand his point. At the same time, I wonder what most people using
computers today, or in the future, need. Given serious amounts of computer
power, what many people may want is higher-level ways to get things done
without worrying how they are done. Python, like many such languages, has a
very basic core that is augmented by what could be libraries, packages,
modules and so on but have been chosen to be built-in to one distribution or
another.

Some people and organizations use some things so commonly, they want python
to start up automatically loading say numpy and pandas and other such
things. They may not care if the programmer knows how to make a linked list
or binary tree data structure. Many such details are encapsulated within
objects built and tested already.

I have seen subjects taught at various levels and python might qualify too.
I took a Physics course that required Calculus and used it to derive
formulas and other things. Others took one that sort of threw equations at
you without much explanation. I have even seen a course called Physics for
Poets. But at least the poets taking it knew science existed and perhaps to
take it seriously when others who had studied it better shared their
results, even if they have no interest in the methods.

We routinely have people learn how to use Word Processors or Spreadsheets
with no clue on how to build such a thing or anything about the Object
models used within or even knowing there is such a thing. Do they need to
know how to use the embedded methods to extend things with Visual Basic or
Javascript? They like getting closer to a WYSIWYG interface that handles
most of their usual needs and perhaps farm out harder things to experts when
needed.

So what if you teach some aspects of python that are needed all over, like
how to make things conditional or in a loop, but not how to make every
possible data structure. What if you deliberately do not teach functional
aspects of the language at first or ever? For some people that is enough to
enable them to then use additional instructions on how to find prepared and
tested chunks to use, even if not always optimally or efficiently. For those
who really want to be programmers, that still may actually be enough if
their task is to work using the tools we have developed, not in making new
tools from scratch. Quite a bit of programming today consists of reading
manual pages and cobbling together chunks that together do the job.

But obviously I would choose the classes where I understood more. Many here
would. But where does it end? Do most of us know how compilers or
interpreters get built or do we just work on top of existing implementations
others make available? Can you build an operating system from Scratch or
make microchips to run them on?

If the goal is Computer USE literacy, I think python has more than enough if
you include the modules that make hard things easy.

Just a thought. Admittedly it is hard these days to give a homework
assignment when the student can find a trivial way to get the result and not
do the hard work.


-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon.net@python.org> On
Behalf Of Dennis Lee Bieber
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:45 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: New Python implementation

On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:03:33 +0000, Alan Gauld via Python-list
<python-list@python.org> declaimed the following:

>On 16/02/2021 07:35, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 16.02.21 um 06:36 schrieb dn:
>>> Pascal's value as a teaching language was that it embodied many
>>> aspects of structured programming, and like Python, consisted of a
>>> limited range of items which could be learned very quickly
>>
>> ROFL. Maybe that was true for Python when it was first invented.
>> Today it is not "a few simple things". Even just the core language,
>
>Python v1 was a good teaching language. v2 complicated it a bit but it
>was still usable. v3 is no longer a good teaching language (unless
>maybe you are teaching CompSci at university.)
>
>In fact in v3 things are so complex that I seriously considered
>dropping Python as the core language for my programming tutorial.
>Until I started looking for an alternative, and there really isn't
>anything much better. At least not that can also be used for real
>projects once you've learned it.

Depending upon the course intentions, I'd say Python is useful for
teaching general programming and getting to usable real-world programs.

For CompSci /theory/, OTOH, Python has too much built in, and would
get in the way of having someone implement things like linked-lists, deques,
hashed structures -- ie; the stuff that lies behind all those Python
built-ins. Pascal, Modula-2 (or is it up to 3 now), or one of the other
system programming languages: Edison from
https://www.amazon.com/Programming-personal-computer-Brinch-Hansen/dp/013730
2673
Implement a hashed-head multiple-linked list using Kemeny&Kurtz
level BASIC! (My algorithms instructor allowed the class to use any language
on that he could read -- so FORTRAN, BASIC, Pascal, Sigma Meta-Symbol,
COBOL... No Snobol, LISP, or APL -- for that final project: a phone book
directory/look-up system). Interestingly, I've only seen a hashed-head
multiple-linked list structure used in one real world application: The
Commodore Amiga file system.


--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com http://wlfraed.microdiversity.freeddns.org/

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Avi and Dennis--

Two thoughtful replies to a deep and interesting question. You have prodded me
to poke my head over the wall to offer a real world point of view.

In the early days before Modula II, I was contracting to a company, quite
large and respected, that had just chucked out Ratfor and adopted Pascal as
their main development tool on VAX-VMS. With long hindsight it was a not
insignificant factor in their going bust.

I was happily developing some of the best code I have ever written using Macro
on a J-11 PDP 11/73, so I was an innocent bystander, with my own OS, with
'borrowed' XDT and CRC table look-up software, courtesy of Dave Cutler and Stu
Wecker respectively. It was a front end for the main project, supporting 1024
terminals feeding 200 transactions a second into the VAX over raw ethernet on
a DEQNA. So I sure learned how to do linked lists, and do them quickly.

The main team was sharing a VAX-750. Watching them trying to use a teaching
language to do real world work was not a joy to behold.

You have both hit on a real-world problem. Script Kiddies and Stack Exchange
<grin>

A comp sci course must use a real-world language to send confident
practitioners into the real world.

Python is an excellent choice in that regard.

Dennis' point about it being too good is valid. If it were my course (and
there is no chance of that) I'd do an extra credit module where they have to
mine and critique the cPython source etc. for lists and comprehensions and
itertools and all their uncles and aunts. After all c is the nearest they will
get to the metal.

I know this has to work. Two or three of the guys on that project were John
Lion's co-authors of the Red Book on Unix internals. They were awesome! (I
told you this was very long hindsight didn't I?)

On 18 Feb 2021 at 17:26:11 GMT, ""Avi Gross"" <avigross@verizon.net> wrote:

> Dennis made the interesting comment "... Python has too much built in ..."
>
> I understand his point. At the same time, I wonder what most people using
> computers today, or in the future, need. Given serious amounts of computer
> power, what many people may want is higher-level ways to get things done
> without worrying how they are done. Python, like many such languages, has a
> very basic core that is augmented by what could be libraries, packages,
> modules and so on but have been chosen to be built-in to one distribution or
> another.
>
> Some people and organizations use some things so commonly, they want python
> to start up automatically loading say numpy and pandas and other such
> things. They may not care if the programmer knows how to make a linked list
> or binary tree data structure. Many such details are encapsulated within
> objects built and tested already.
>
> I have seen subjects taught at various levels and python might qualify too.
> I took a Physics course that required Calculus and used it to derive
> formulas and other things. Others took one that sort of threw equations at
> you without much explanation. I have even seen a course called Physics for
> Poets. But at least the poets taking it knew science existed and perhaps to
> take it seriously when others who had studied it better shared their
> results, even if they have no interest in the methods.
>
> We routinely have people learn how to use Word Processors or Spreadsheets
> with no clue on how to build such a thing or anything about the Object
> models used within or even knowing there is such a thing. Do they need to
> know how to use the embedded methods to extend things with Visual Basic or
> Javascript? They like getting closer to a WYSIWYG interface that handles
> most of their usual needs and perhaps farm out harder things to experts when
> needed.
>
> So what if you teach some aspects of python that are needed all over, like
> how to make things conditional or in a loop, but not how to make every
> possible data structure. What if you deliberately do not teach functional
> aspects of the language at first or ever? For some people that is enough to
> enable them to then use additional instructions on how to find prepared and
> tested chunks to use, even if not always optimally or efficiently. For those
> who really want to be programmers, that still may actually be enough if
> their task is to work using the tools we have developed, not in making new
> tools from scratch. Quite a bit of programming today consists of reading
> manual pages and cobbling together chunks that together do the job.
>
> But obviously I would choose the classes where I understood more. Many here
> would. But where does it end? Do most of us know how compilers or
> interpreters get built or do we just work on top of existing implementations
> others make available? Can you build an operating system from Scratch or
> make microchips to run them on?
>
> If the goal is Computer USE literacy, I think python has more than enough if
> you include the modules that make hard things easy.
>
> Just a thought. Admittedly it is hard these days to give a homework
> assignment when the student can find a trivial way to get the result and not
> do the hard work.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon.net@python.org> On
> Behalf Of Dennis Lee Bieber
> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:45 AM
> To: python-list@python.org
> Subject: Re: New Python implementation
>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:03:33 +0000, Alan Gauld via Python-list
> <python-list@python.org> declaimed the following:
>
>> On 16/02/2021 07:35, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>>> Am 16.02.21 um 06:36 schrieb dn:
>>>> Pascal's value as a teaching language was that it embodied many
>>>> aspects of structured programming, and like Python, consisted of a
>>>> limited range of items which could be learned very quickly
>>>
>>> ROFL. Maybe that was true for Python when it was first invented.
>>> Today it is not "a few simple things". Even just the core language,
>>
>> Python v1 was a good teaching language. v2 complicated it a bit but it
>> was still usable. v3 is no longer a good teaching language (unless
>> maybe you are teaching CompSci at university.)
>>
>> In fact in v3 things are so complex that I seriously considered
>> dropping Python as the core language for my programming tutorial.
>> Until I started looking for an alternative, and there really isn't
>> anything much better. At least not that can also be used for real
>> projects once you've learned it.
>
> Depending upon the course intentions, I'd say Python is useful for
> teaching general programming and getting to usable real-world programs.
>
> For CompSci /theory/, OTOH, Python has too much built in, and would
> get in the way of having someone implement things like linked-lists, deques,
> hashed structures -- ie; the stuff that lies behind all those Python
> built-ins. Pascal, Modula-2 (or is it up to 3 now), or one of the other
> system programming languages: Edison from
> https://www.amazon.com/Programming-personal-computer-Brinch-Hansen/dp/013730
> 2673
> Implement a hashed-head multiple-linked list using Kemeny&Kurtz
> level BASIC! (My algorithms instructor allowed the class to use any language
> on that he could read -- so FORTRAN, BASIC, Pascal, Sigma Meta-Symbol,
> COBOL... No Snobol, LISP, or APL -- for that final project: a phone book
> directory/look-up system). Interestingly, I've only seen a hashed-head
> multiple-linked list structure used in one real world application: The
> Commodore Amiga file system.


--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 19/02/2021 03:51, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> They chose Pascal as being more modern, and something taught in schools
> (yeah, like TurboPascal is going to be a good introduction to writing
> software for real-time ground control of satellites).

Funnily enough it was. Or at least for real-time telecomms control.
We wrote all our real-time stuff on VAX and later PC using Pascal
from the mid 80s through to early 1990s when we switched to C++.
But TurboPascal was not much like Pascal, it had all the
theoretical bits by-passed or removed.

I still use Pascal in the shape of Delphi for building windows
GUI apps today... But Delphi bears even less resemblance to
Wirth's Pascal, in fact its quite similar to Python in many
ways.

--
Alan G
Author of the Learn to Program web site
http://www.alan-g.me.uk/
http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld
Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 2021-02-19, Alan Gauld via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:
> On 19/02/2021 03:51, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> They chose Pascal as being more modern, and something taught in
>> schools (yeah, like TurboPascal is going to be a good introduction
>> to writing software for real-time ground control of satellites).
>
> Funnily enough it was. Or at least for real-time telecomms control.
> We wrote all our real-time stuff on VAX and later PC using Pascal
> from the mid 80s through to early 1990s when we switched to C++.
> But TurboPascal was not much like Pascal, it had all the
> theoretical bits by-passed or removed.

Back in the 80's we wrote real-time embedded software for cellular
telephone radios in Pascal. We even wrote the OS kernel in Pascal. It
worked great and was less error-prone than C.

--
Grant



--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Some of us here go way back and have stories to tell of what we did even
before Python existed. I won't rehash my history here now except to say I
did use PASCAL in graduate school and my first job before switching to C
which was less annoying to use.

What I am interested in, in this forum, is how Python grew and specifically
what motivated adding new features. I see it as a bit more like a Camel
created when a committee got together and decided to create a horse and one
of them wanted it to also do well in a desert and so on.

For teaching purposes, it can be useful to have a minimalist design and a
way to catch lots of errors such as by strong typing. Some of that may also
be useful in the real world. But in re-teaching someone now in another
language, I keep running into the fact that when I use newer and more
powerful features they feel overwhelmed as they vaguely remember the
built-in way and the new way uses a piping metaphor they are not familiar
with. I have had others who started with the new ways and don't even want to
know how an earlier version of the language did it.

In the real world, having to read, let alone maintain, code that others have
had a hand in shaping and reshaping can be hard work if each person did
things their own way. We have discussed the many ways you can format text in
python and if a program uses them all, here and there, ...

But for an individual programmer, it is great to use whichever method feels
best for you, and especially if you came to python from another language
that method was borrowed from or vice versa. Being a rich language has pro's
and cons. LISP only had cons.

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon.net@python.org> On
Behalf Of Alan Gauld via Python-list
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 6:23 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: New Python implementation

On 19/02/2021 03:51, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:

> They chose Pascal as being more modern, and something taught in
> schools (yeah, like TurboPascal is going to be a good introduction to
> writing software for real-time ground control of satellites).

Funnily enough it was. Or at least for real-time telecomms control.
We wrote all our real-time stuff on VAX and later PC using Pascal from the
mid 80s through to early 1990s when we switched to C++.
But TurboPascal was not much like Pascal, it had all the theoretical bits
by-passed or removed.

I still use Pascal in the shape of Delphi for building windows GUI apps
today... But Delphi bears even less resemblance to Wirth's Pascal, in fact
its quite similar to Python in many ways.

--
Alan G
Author of the Learn to Program web site
http://www.alan-g.me.uk/
http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld
Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 2021-02-19, Avi Gross via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:

> Some of us here go way back and have stories to tell of what we did even
> before Python existed. I won't rehash my history here now except to say I
> did use PASCAL in graduate school and my first job before switching to C
> which was less annoying to use.

ITYM Pascal. ;)

--
Grant

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 19/02/2021 10.49, Avi Gross wrote:

> But for an individual programmer, it is great to use whichever method feels
> best for you, and especially if you came to python from another language
> that method was borrowed from or vice versa. Being a rich language has pro's
> and cons. LISP only had cons.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcQDqZIN09I>

--
Michael F. Stemper
If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much
more like prunes than rhubarb does.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

>> that method was borrowed from or vice versa. Being a rich language has pro's
>> and cons. LISP only had cons.

Now, Now. That’s certainly not correct.

LISP does have a few Pros. Namely Job security. You’ll have a hard time replacing a experienced and professional LISP programmer.

- Benjamin



--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Benjamin,

I wonder if you understood my intended meaning not about the plusses and minuses of using a language like LISP but that it is fundamentally build on using the CONS concept to make lists in a poetic way but has no PROSE.

Not only does every language have what I meant by the usual meaning of pros and cons, but it depends on what other languages you are comparing it to, what kind of work you use the language for, is it for prototyping or final and efficient use, will someone else be extending or maintaining it, and which side of the bed you woke up on.

I used to be a fan of brevity as in whatever make me type less. But over time, many functions you call now have so many arguments, that I am now a fan of specifying the names of each argument as in function_name(arg1=value1, arg3=value3, ...) because it makes it much clearer what you want and prevents a certain class of errors. Nonetheless, I despise very long variable names, even when the editor allows for name completion. I thus like to place many commands on multiple lines to be read somewhat vertically and short lines. Others prefer the opposite. If a language hinders this style of multi-line, it is a plus or minus depending.

(cons "A" (cons "v" (cons "I" nil)))

-----Original Message-----
From: Python-list <python-list-bounces+avigross=verizon.net@python.org> On Behalf Of Benjamin Schollnick
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:31 PM
To: Michael F. Stemper <mstemper@gmail.com>
Cc: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: New Python implementation


>> that method was borrowed from or vice versa. Being a rich language
>> has pro's and cons. LISP only had cons.

Now, Now. That’s certainly not correct.

LISP does have a few Pros. Namely Job security. You’ll have a hard time replacing a experienced and professional LISP programmer.

- Benjamin



--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

On 19/02/2021 18:14, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

>> and cons. LISP only had cons.

:-)

LOL


--
Alan G
Author of the Learn to Program web site
http://www.alan-g.me.uk/
http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld
Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list