Mailing List Archive

So far, you have not made one post to comp.lang.python that comes
anywhere close to the posting guidelines.

Would you mind taking this to comp.lang.snobbery, or wherever it
belongs?

> Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
>
> > [For example, I can think the Eiffel syntax is `philosophically' broken, but
> > as `infix' syntaxes go, it is not. And it's a good language (I programmed
>
> Correction. There's one thing broken. The Subject Oriented syntax,
> but as Eiffel was started in '85, I guess that is understandable.
>
> Ada 95 got this one right. Unfortunately, the semantics qualify as
> `multiply broken' regarding this issue:
>
> 1. They thought about multiple dispatch, and they broke it on
> purpose. 2. If you specialize on more than one parameter, it should
> be the same type specifier
> for all of them, i.e. only applicable to predicates, copying,
> arithmetic and
> things like that,
> not useful most of the times one wants several specializers. 3.
> Worse of all, instead of just adopting a left-to-right precedence
> rule, one that looks very
> ugly was added, increasing the complexity of a document that is
> already big
> enough.
>
> In '95, at VRAI we refocused our application from AI-oriented to
> (soft) real-time. I grabbed the 9X specs, and the initial excitement
> turned to dissapointment (the prototype was in CLOS). Moving would
> have not only meant losing a lot in flexibility, but, worse of all,
> we would move only from being third-class to second-class citizens
> (SGI platform). And I would have rather dedicate the extra effort to
> CL. So after a little successful experience, and given the simpler
> requirements, we went with C++. Needless to say, the project became
> a death march. You don't go with C++ unless you can afford paying
> 5-10 times more for a lot less functionality.
>
> --
> Fernando D. Mato Mira
> Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
> Advanced Systems Engineering Division
> CSEM
> Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
> CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
> Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
>
> www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

- Gordon

(posted and mailed)

> Don't go into a flame war. I don't know ANY language that
> is not `broken' somehow, even my favorite ones or the ones
> that are not my favorite but that are also `good'.

as far as I can tell, you haven't even mentioned Python in any
of your posts to comp.lang.python and the python language
mailing list. sure looks like the usual cross-posting time-wasting
usenet troll to me, but maybe someone is abusing your user
account?

...

if you really are interested in Python, why not read the news-
group and language FAQ's, and come back when you have some-
thing relevant to ask or say. you'll find the necessary resources
at:

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488749782&fmt=text
http://www.python.org/doc/FAQ.html

you'll find Python source code, documentation, and lots of
other community resources at:

http://www.python.org

why not give it a try?

...

on the other hand, if you're not interested in Python, maybe you
could stop wasting our time?

</F>

Gordon McMillan wrote:
>
> So far, you have not made one post to comp.lang.python that comes
> anywhere close to the posting guidelines.
>
> Would you mind taking this to comp.lang.snobbery, or wherever it
> belongs?

Don't go into a flame war. I don't know ANY language that
is not `broken' somehow, even my favorite ones or the ones
that are not my favorite but that are also `good'.

Fredrik Lundh wrote:

> as far as I can tell, you haven't even mentioned Python in any
> of your posts to comp.lang.python and the python language
> mailing list. sure looks like the usual cross-posting time-wasting
> usenet troll to me, but maybe someone is abusing your user
> account?

No. The vague impression I got from python tells me it's a good
language, and their folk seem pretty much on track. As many of its users

seem to have the same kinds of needs the tcl people do, I thought
it would probably be the place to find knowledgeable people with
a balanced opinion.

>the other hand, if you're not interested in Python, maybe you
>could stop wasting our time?

If the subject does not interest you, you don't need to read.
Myself, I find it very enriching to meet people from other
`cults'. That's how you can learn new things.

You've been polite, but the last line is pretty ambiguous to me in tone,
given the limitations of this electronic
medium. And the same happened with some other person in the newsgroup.

Beware. That does not do Python any good. Suddenly, I have
the impression the group is populated with very excitable and
all-knowing `Linux kiddies' (obviouly, why didn't I think so? - I also
use Linux),
and that it's not one some place one should want to visit very often
(like comp.lang.c++, for example).
Just think about it.

And no, I don't see why I should use Python instead of other things.
Although seeing it everywhere (ILU, GNOME, etc.) has intrigued me,
although not
from a practical perspective, so I haven't really looked at it.
For me, it would be interesting to study it if there was something
`new', like Occam has CSP, Eiffel has assertions, Ada has tasking (and
ADTs were
`new', at the time I studied it, in1986), Haskell has monads, etc.

Regards,

--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720

www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html

"Fernando D. Mato Mira" wrote:
>
> Suddenly, I have
> the impression the group is populated with very excitable and
> all-knowing `Linux kiddies'

I can reassure you that is *not* the typical kind of
person who frequents this group. The vast majority
of the time, discussions here are very polite and
well-reasoned, as I'm sure you'll find if you read
the group for a while!

Don't-be-put-off-by-the-occasional-heated-remark,
Greg