"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes: > > I know perfectly well how to write > > robust macros, having written many of them in days gone by. And you > > know what? They worked and were bug-free. > You have written robust macros in Python? Peculiar. The time > machine must be malfunctioning... I did not say I wrote them in Python. I have written them in Lisp, and in Lisp, just like you would need to in Python, you must make sure that an exception handler does not catch the wrong exceptions. I don't believe that the exception system I was using at the time had an "else" clause, so this needed to be done with the use of temporary variables. > you _sure_ you didn't use instead a language whose first and > foremost design choice was to use a form for its programs that is > easy to process by program, rather than one that's easy for humans > to read and write? You seem to think that this is an insurmountable barier. I feel that it is not. Lisp 1.5 had an algol-like syntax in addition to it's s-expression syntax. If you wanted to write code that manipulated other code you had to be familiar with the s-expression syntax. If you didn't want to do this, then you could stick completely to the algol-like syntax. Why didn't the algol-like syntax stick? The Lisp community ended up being perfectly happy with the s-expression syntax and decided they didn't need two. This was probably a mistake, since if they had kept the algol-like syntax, Lisp might not have disappeared into the ghettos it now dominates. > try/except/else is of course no rocket science compared to the High > Surgery you will be proposing in your PEP, no doubt. But care about > little things (such as spelling, or correct usage of a programming > language even in illustrative examples) may be a good indicator of a > person's mindset and attitude. My usage of the programming language was perfectly correct. My spelling is often problematic. As I already told you, I am dyslexic. I did look up McCarthy's name and I used the spelling I found. Apparently there are others who are as dyslexic as I am. Caveat Emptor. > If I had my choice each and every time, I would take the latter, I have not taunted you into a flame war. You have done it of your own accord. > What you are advocating here in the last few days is not "Python", > but, rather, declaration of variables, infinitely extensible syntax You are saying that because I have a difference of opinion from you that you are justified in being abusive? > (and, I gather from the grapevine, only single-inheritance rather > than multiple, and no spaces for indentation -- not sure how many > other brilliant ideas you've still spared us for the moment). You gather wrong. Time for a new grapevine. > If this is the "python" you're relentlessly evangelizing, then my > interest in your evangelization activities is a _negative_ one. I evangelize Python as it is. When people point out flaws in Python, I agree with them that Python has some flaws, but I point out that it is still by far the best tool out there for many tasks. I don't call the "whiners" idiots because they have a difference of opinion from me or from Guido. > Our passion level on such themes is then probably on a par. A key > difference would seem to be that I would never try to *pervert* a > programming language by totally ignoring its fundamentals, Then you must think that Guido has at times wanted to "pervert" Python and ignore its fundamentals. > while you appear to be one of the kind of people who love to _grasp_ > beautiful things for the specific purpose of sullying their purity. You know very little about me. > Do you hang around Haskell lists whining that Haskell would be > just great if it just switched over to eager evaluation, mutability, > and no type-correctness? No, because Haskell is a research language. It serves its purpose of furthering research well. I would suggest to the Haskell folk, however, that it needs to become more object-oriented as the problem domain becomes more undertood. > or is Python the only language lucky enough to get the unmeasurable > benefits of your boundless wisdom...? Any language whose purpose is to be a general purpose programming language can learn from other languages. No general purpose programming language yet created cannot be improved. > > Why don't you tell your theory that anyone who thinks an extensible > > syntax might be a useful feature doesn't understand the > > "wellenbrofferpoftenbuft" of Python to Guido, since I saw him muse in > Uh, do I notice a strong hostility towards the German language in > this pseudo-quote? No. > You know, the "print>>flop" fiasco _did_ make me suspect that at one > point:-). But then I rationalized that one disaster per ten years > is still a very good batting average -- far better than any I can > claim. As for musings, they're innocuous enough until and unless > they become substance. Well all *I've* provided is musings too. Why don't you start treating Guido the way you've treated me? I've mused about nothing here that he hasn't also mused about. > > Your hypothetical army of monkeys sitting > > at typewriters would better serve the community. > *MINE*? _BLUSH_. You know, Mr Alan, I _have_ received many > interesting compliments on the net, but, so far, none as high as > somebody mistaking me for Emile Borel You need to brush up on your idiomatic English. I know quite well that the story of the monkeys with typewriters did not originate with you. Thanks for the history lesson though. |>oug
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4