Huaiyu Zhu wrote:
>
> ...
>
> So if I ask more I shall get the bit I wanted. When would this wonderful
> new parser be available so that I can change the syntax beyond recognition?
> :-)
It all depends on who works on it and how hard they work. I really can't
predict. There some Python features that I thought were years away and
appeared from nowhere (cyclic gc) and others that seem perpetually on
the verge of being available (e.g. a compiler that achieves order of
magnitude performance improvements). If I had to pick a version number
out of the wind I would say 2.1 or 2.2. I would predict the same
timeline for any new operators.
By the way, there is already a language specifically designed to allow
people with particular interests to extend the syntax fairly
arbitrarily. It is called REBOL. I think TCL is also a little more
forgiving about syntactic variance. There may be others.
> I don't believe python should be bond to this heritage as much as perl does.
> Maybe those who do matrix have not joined yet. To justify support by the
> number of existing users sounds like a self-fulfilling prophacy.
It isn't the existing users. It's the users that we see around us. I
don't remember anyone ever asking me for help using Python for matrices,
at any company I have ever worked at. Obviously you live in a different
world. Either of our perceptions could be skewed.
Perhaps the best bet would be for you to make a matrix variant of Python
so popular that we could see the audience in terms of downloads and
discussions.
> Now compare what's written in matlab/octave
>
> (X'*X)\(X'*y)
>
> with what's written in python
>
> matrixmultiply(inverse(matrixmultiply(transpose(X), X)),
> (matrixmultiply(transpose(X), y[:,NewAxis])))
There must be a more compact syntax! Even without knowing the semantics:
from matrix import tickmult, backslash
backslash( tickmult( X, X ), tickmult( X, y ))
> Now look at the total number of users of matlab/octave, and ask: Is python
> really so inferior that most of them wouldn't switch to python?
I have no idea. If the primary difference between expensive matrix
packages and Python is syntax, perhaps you and I should incorporate and
exploit that market inefficiency. :)
> To change this status does not even need native support of matrix. The only
> thing required is that there be enough binary operators to be overridden by
> applications - any application that needs additional binary operators.
Michael Hudson has a tagline that made me laugh out loud:
I saw `cout' being shifted "Hello world" times to the left and
stopped right there.
-- Steve Gonedes
He's talking about the random-seeming overloadings you get in C++
because there are so many overloadable operators and they are so poorly
defined. Anyhow, what if I want a different syntax for the XML
operators. "->" and "<-" might be useful.
I am half-tempted to suggest a system where anyone could add new
operators, perhaps in quotes or back-ticks or something but I am very
afraid of what happens when the people who evented "cout shifting" get
their hands on it!
> But I can see its use now. I have to get your reply from web and cut and
> paste in order to reply again. :-(
How long until some enterprising Python programmer makes a utility that
polls the website, and generates an email version of each message as it
appears? :)
--
Paul Prescod - Not encumbered by corporate consensus
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.
- http://www.cs.yale.edu/~perlis-alan/quotes.html
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