Dietrich

Judging from the number of questions asked at this Python forum, Python must be so perfect of a computer language, that it simply does not lead to any questions.

Looking at questions asked in other languages like C and C++ I have to say, that most of these questions simply are of no concern in a much higher language like Python.

Another thing may be that Pythonians are all busy exploring the new stuff in Python 2.5. Actually I am exploring the new goodies that came with wxPython for Python 2.5 and that it is a mother load!

Has anybody explored the Python Tkinter GUI Builder (ptkgb) at:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ptkgb/
?

__________________
I looked it up on the Intergnats!

Infinite Recursion

Or it could be the lack of Python oriented questions implies visitors to PFO do not use Python very often. Every language tends to have its on subset of problems and questions... surely you wouldn't hear about malloc issues in Python... I haven't looked at ptkgb myself, actually I haven't looked all that much into Python itself... just enough to be functional. Although, I'm hoping to "dive" further into it soon.

__________________
http://jasonpowers.net

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

y0da

I use Python. It is just a language that is easier for me to understand. That means that I don't really need to ask to many questions and if I do have a question the first thing I do is look it up before I post anything about it...

__________________
My Website << Not Finished

My Email

DaWei

Since this thread has been revived, I'll take the opportuntiy to make a few personal observations. Bear in mind that these are personal opinions.

Python is more abstract than some of the more traditional languages. This leads to formulating solutions in a way that is more equivalent to human thought processes than those which more traditional languages afford. This is a Good Thang. On the other hand, Python, in its desire to provide this abstraction, has gone overboard. It has undertaken to provide facilities that go beyond natural thought processes, thus requiring dedicated, non-human-like thought.

This thought is opposite from the drop-down-to-Von Neuman-basics. It requires an up-tick to non-human, "Pythonic" basics. There is little value in this, since it doesn't result in increased production at the expense of performance (often a good thing, in terms of bottom-line resource consumption). It results in decreased production with little (if any) gain in ease of thought. It's interesting, sure, in terms of theoretical (but less-than-useful) approaches. I believe that if you plotted bottom-line effectiveness, you would find that Python is beyond the peak to the "right", which is no better (or not much better) than below the peak to the "left".

I also believe that the term, "Pythonic", has lost any real meaning synomynous with "Elegant." I think it's grossly misused.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Dizzutch

I'm starting to like python more and more, maybe it's because I'm starting to hate perl more and more....eh, whatever, I hate Java as well, but when it comes down to it, knowing Java/perl/python and the like do pay the bills. I think that python is terribly underrated, but it will shine, it's day is coming.

__________________
naked pictures of you | PFO F@H stats

DaWei

If they fire up Google Maps and get back on course.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Arevos

Could you give an example of this? I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that constructive criticism of the shortcomings of languages always interests me.

Yarvin

I second that... I would also like to see an example of this theory

also:
DeWei said "Thang"... haha....

__________________
[ADM]art

DaWei

I know you have that interest, Arevos. I think you might agree that some of the forms of some of the abstractions (generators, etc.) approach obscurity without resulting in leaner code or clearer thought. I'm not criticizing Python specifically. There was a phase in the lifetime of C, for instance, that did the same thing. That's why I mention a peak, because there's an inevitable tradeoff. Rapid development, in these times, is often more valuable than machine/performance resources, but if one has to strain to develop thought habits, whether upwards or downwards, one may not reap the benefits in a timely and cost effective manner. A cursory perusal of some of the examples in this forum will show a tendency to reduced text without a real result in either enhanced performance or enhanced production (presuming one ignores the few additional typing strokes).

There is little question, however, that pushing these envelopes, even without commercial gain, will often result in enhanced methods down the road. Those WILL (perhaps I should say MAY), eventually, result in gains. Meanwhile, the present day coder has to strike a balance.

__________________
Abstraction doesn't make it impossible to write bad code; it makes it possible to write superior code.
Contributor's Corner: Grumpy on C++ Exceptions DaWei on Pointers

Sane

:beard: ...

Search Results For DaWei On "Thang" (97 Results Found)

...