🌐 Mailman 3 August 2016 - Python-list - python.org

Re: Why not allow empty code blocks?
by Paul Rubin Aug. 1, 2016

Aug. 1, 2016

Chris Angelico <rosuav(a)gmail.com> writes: > But out of 20MB, I easily had *space* for a compiler. The problem was > compilation time. I could mess around in BASIC with reasonable > turnaround times; I could mess around in DEBUG with excellent > turnaround times. Doing even the tiniest work in C meant delays long > enough to go do something else. Which compiler did you use? Turbo C was quite fast even on the 8088, and Turbo Pascal was even faster: http://prog21.dadgum.com/47.html explains why Pascal was faster to compile than C. F83 (Forth-83) and later F-PC also ran on the bare bones PC and were also interactive and super responsive. As interpreters they were slower than compiled C, but quite a bit faster than interpreted BASIC, and it was simple to write functions in assembly code (built-in assemblers) if you needed them fast. I never used any of them back then, but more recently have been reading about them out of general interest.

2 1

Re: Why not allow empty code blocks?
by Gene Heskett Aug. 1, 2016

Aug. 1, 2016

On Sunday 31 July 2016 12:39:00 Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 01:31:42 +1000, Steven D'Aprano > <steve(a)pearwood.info> > > declaimed the following: > >And you know what? That's fine. It's *good* that there are language > >designers with different ideas of what's valuable. That gives us a > > rich eco-system of languages to pick and choose from. Can you > > imagine if everyone thought the same way and valued the same things? > > We have *one* language, and it would probably be COBOL. > > FORTRAN Nah, Forth. > -- > Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN > wlfraed(a)ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

1 0

Re: Why not allow empty code blocks?
by Paul Rubin Aug. 1, 2016

Aug. 1, 2016

Chris Angelico <rosuav(a)gmail.com> writes: > Yes, and we didn't have Python then. When I had a computer with 640KB > of memory, my options were (1) BASIC or (2) 8086 assembly language, > using DEBUG.EXE and its mini-assembler. Later on (much much later), I > added C to the available languages, but it was tedious and annoying, > because one tiny change meant minutes of compilation. 1. check this out: http://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html 2. There were also some decent Lisps for the PC. Sort of like Python but with parentheses as structure instead of indentation: http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html

2 1

Re: Why not allow empty code blocks?
by bart4858＠gmail.com Aug. 1, 2016

Aug. 1, 2016

On Monday, 1 August 2016 00:50:09 UTC+1, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, <xxxx(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:01:52 UTC+1, Michael Torrie wrote: > > > >> That said, I wish he'd stop posting his arguments here on this list as > >> he clearly doesn't use Python for anything, and hasn't used Python for > >> any real amount of coding. He has no vested interest in Python so why > >> should his opinions matter to us? > > > > What's using Python got to do with it? If I needed to write Python as a job, then I'd just get on with it. I probably wouldn't have time to post on here! > > > > I don't so can discuss it from a different perspective. > > I should get into Parliament and start passing laws about cars. I'd > have a valuable perspective on it, since I never drive. Huh? That's exactly what happens! The UK Health Secretary doesn't need to be a doctor; the Chancellor doesn't need an economics degree, etc. However I do 'drive' as I've been programming for decades. And I can have an opinion about a model of car that I don't normally drive. An opinion which you might well not get from someone who drives that model for a living. -- Bartc

2 1

Re: Why not allow empty code blocks?
by BartC Aug. 1, 2016

Aug. 1, 2016

On 30/07/2016 14:36, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)pearwood.info> wrote: >>> "for i in range(N):" just to repeat a block N times... >> >> Why should there be special syntax just for repeating a block N times? >> There's a general purpose for-loop which performs iteration. Why do you >> need special syntax to do what it already does? > > Python could have chosen to make integers iterable, such that you say: > > for i in 10: > > but I don't think it really improves readability. On 30/07/2016 13:47, Chris Angelico wrote: >(Also, it requires the use > and damage of some iterator variable, which may be significant in some > contexts.) The 'i' is superfluous. Why not: for 10: (In my own syntaxes I use (actual example): to 64 do table append:= nextbyte(fs) od Python equivalent: for i in range(64): table.append(nextbyte(fs)) The range object isn't really necessary, and the 'i' variable doesn't need to be exposed (as a programmer-accessible, reference-counted variable). The 'to' construct I also implemented with a single very fast byte-code, executed once per iteration.) -- Bartc

6 11