Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > [Fwd: Re: [Uuu-devel] languages] <-- Why Python

Reply
Thread Tools

[Fwd: Re: [Uuu-devel] languages] <-- Why Python

 
 
Arich Chanachai
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2005
I consider this to be a good question. I just started to learn Python
and I like it. I don't know about Lisp however...

The problem, IMHO, in creating a new language is that we are losing code
reusability... we will be able to port python applications very easily...

I don't have a clear idea on this, but I'm sticking to Python until someone
decides to replace it

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Taytor" <(E-Mail Removed)>
To: <(E-Mail Removed)>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: [Uuu-devel] languages


> First, thank you for Unununium. I first learned of the project years ago
> and I'm happy to see it is alive and well.
>
> I'm curious: For the same reasons cited for using Python, why not use
> Lisp? I understand that Python is more popular/pervasive, but if reducing
> the cognitive load on the programmers, increasing the elegance and
> efficiency between programmer and code, &c., is of primary concern, Lisp
> (or as mentioned in the documentation, creating a new language) seems a
> better choice (as it appears to me). What do you think?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Uuu-devel mailing list
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
> http://unununium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uuu-devel



_______________________________________________
Uuu-devel mailing list
(E-Mail Removed)
http://unununium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uuu-devel

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
pythonUser_07
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2005

Some quick thoughts.

1- Python is not new relatively speaking.

2)- Python is a natural language for learning basic scripting, but can
carry you through to object oriented program.

3)- Knowing python, instantly gets you access to jython. I've found
jython incredibly helpful in learning java. Finally, jython seems to
be the defacto test scripting language for java.

Cheers.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Arich Chanachai
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2005
pythonUser_07 wrote:

>Some quick thoughts.
>
>1- Python is not new relatively speaking.
>
>

Quite true, good point.

>2)- Python is a natural language for learning basic scripting, but can
>carry you through to object oriented program.
>
>3)- Knowing python, instantly gets you access to jython. I've found
>jython incredibly helpful in learning java. Finally, jython seems to
>be the defacto test scripting language for java.
>
>Cheers.
>
>
>

These last two points kind of diverge from the point, no? What I mean
is that we want to present the argument of why Python is the best choice
as THE built-in programming language for the revolutionary uuu operating
system. Unless Java becomes built-in, the ability to transition from
Python to Jython isn't pertinent info when talking about the uuu
project. The idea is to have an easily maintainable (hence readable) OS
core of functionality built with Python and to support advanced yet
clean and simple modules which can run on the OS with support from the
ground-up.

On the other hand, are you suggesting against Python in favor of Java?

- Arich
 
Reply With Quote
 
pythonUser_07
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-17-2005
I see your point.

Consider points 2 and 3 a nice side effect.

The language I favor actually ties into the environment I am working
in: Python for rapid prototyping, java for larger projects where the
eclipse IDE comes in very handy.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Meyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2005
Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> These last two points kind of diverge from the point, no? What I mean
> is that we want to present the argument of why Python is the best
> choice as THE built-in programming language for the revolutionary uuu
> operating system.


A new operating system shouldn't be picking "THE" built-in programming
language. It should instead be providing mechanisms to allow arbitrary
programming languages to be used wherever they are required. Tying the
users of the OS - or of some application - down to a specific language
is a disservice to the developers and users of that OS or application.

While Python is an excellent language, and has a nice implementation
for embedding/extending applications, it's not necessarily the best
choice for all problems. You're be doing much better for your users to
allow them to choose the right language for the problem than to
dictate the language that has to be used.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <(E-Mail Removed)> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arich Chanachai
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2005
Mike Meyer wrote:

>Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>
>
>>These last two points kind of diverge from the point, no? What I mean
>>is that we want to present the argument of why Python is the best
>>choice as THE built-in programming language for the revolutionary uuu
>>operating system.
>>
>>

>
>A new operating system shouldn't be picking "THE" built-in programming
>language. It should instead be providing mechanisms to allow arbitrary
>programming languages to be used wherever they are required. Tying the
>users of the OS - or of some application - down to a specific language
>is a disservice to the developers and users of that OS or application.
>
>While Python is an excellent language, and has a nice implementation
>for embedding/extending applications, it's not necessarily the best
>choice for all problems. You're be doing much better for your users to
>allow them to choose the right language for the problem than to
>dictate the language that has to be used.
>
> <mike
>
>

There is no intention to dictate, but instead to provide out-of-the-box,
built-into-the-architecture support for a single language or a wide
array of languages. For now, this will begin with a single language and
the question is merely which one. Python has been chosen, but some
would argue that others are a better choice, such as Lisp. In the
future, or whenever someone steps up to the plate, support for the CLR
will be implemented, thus broadening the array of integrally supported
programming languages (i.e IronPython, Boo, and so forth).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Meyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2005
Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>>Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>These last two points kind of diverge from the point, no? What I mean
>>>is that we want to present the argument of why Python is the best
>>>choice as THE built-in programming language for the revolutionary uuu
>>>operating system.

>>
>>A new operating system shouldn't be picking "THE" built-in programming
>>language. It should instead be providing mechanisms to allow arbitrary
>>programming languages to be used wherever they are required. Tying the
>>users of the OS - or of some application - down to a specific language
>>is a disservice to the developers and users of that OS or application.
>>
>>While Python is an excellent language, and has a nice implementation
>>for embedding/extending applications, it's not necessarily the best
>>choice for all problems. You're be doing much better for your users to
>>allow them to choose the right language for the problem than to
>>dictate the language that has to be used.
>>

> There is no intention to dictate, but instead to provide
> out-of-the-box, built-into-the-architecture support for a single
> language or a wide array of languages. For now, this will begin with
> a single language and the question is merely which one.


Whatever the intentions may be, the *act* is one of dictation. Since
the point of the underlying OS is to increase the interconnections
between applications (assuming I've found the correct web page and
interpreted it correctly), the underlying architecture should be
language-neutral. That allows as many applications as possible to play
in the environment.

I did this with CORBA (see http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/scripting/ )
just to show that Unix can play in this arena as well as various
desktop OS's. Plan 9 provides a much better mechanism that allows any
programming language that can do file I/O to be used for building
interconnections.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <(E-Mail Removed)> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Arich Chanachai
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2005
Mike Meyer wrote:

>Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>
>>Mike Meyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>These last two points kind of diverge from the point, no? What I mean
>>>>is that we want to present the argument of why Python is the best
>>>>choice as THE built-in programming language for the revolutionary uuu
>>>>operating system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>A new operating system shouldn't be picking "THE" built-in programming
>>>language. It should instead be providing mechanisms to allow arbitrary
>>>programming languages to be used wherever they are required. Tying the
>>>users of the OS - or of some application - down to a specific language
>>>is a disservice to the developers and users of that OS or application.
>>>
>>>While Python is an excellent language, and has a nice implementation
>>>for embedding/extending applications, it's not necessarily the best
>>>choice for all problems. You're be doing much better for your users to
>>>allow them to choose the right language for the problem than to
>>>dictate the language that has to be used.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>There is no intention to dictate, but instead to provide
>>out-of-the-box, built-into-the-architecture support for a single
>>language or a wide array of languages. For now, this will begin with
>>a single language and the question is merely which one.
>>
>>

>
>Whatever the intentions may be, the *act* is one of dictation. Since
>the point of the underlying OS is to increase the interconnections
>between applications (assuming I've found the correct web page and
>interpreted it correctly), the underlying architecture should be
>language-neutral. That allows as many applications as possible to play
>in the environment.
>
>I did this with CORBA (see http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/scripting/ )
>just to show that Unix can play in this arena as well as various
>desktop OS's. Plan 9 provides a much better mechanism that allows any
>programming language that can do file I/O to be used for building
>interconnections.
>
> <mike
>
>

When the CLR is integrated, it will allow a wide array of problem
solving choices for uuu users.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ville Vainio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2005
>>>>> "Arich" == Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

Arich> From: "Richard Taytor" <(E-Mail Removed)>
Arich> To: <(E-Mail Removed)>
Arich> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:28 PM
Arich> Subject: [Uuu-devel] languages


>> First, thank you for Unununium. I first learned of the project
>> years ago and I'm happy to see it is alive and well.
>>
>> I'm curious: For the same reasons cited for using Python, why
>> not use Lisp? I understand that Python is more
>> popular/pervasive, but if reducing the cognitive load on the
>> programmers, increasing the elegance and efficiency between
>> programmer and code, &c., is of primary concern, Lisp (or as
>> mentioned in the documentation, creating a new language) seems
>> a better choice (as it appears to me). What do you think?


Essentially this seems like advocacy material for Lisp (doesn't seem
to address any UUU-specific issues, just claims that Lisp is "better"
than Python), and should be treated as such. Go googling for heaps of
Python vs. Lisp material.

Go ahead and learn Lisp - I guess you'll quickly realize that
perfectly rational people may well choose Python for reasons other
than "not knowing Lisp".

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Meyer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-18-2005
Arich Chanachai <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Mike Meyer wrote:
>>Whatever the intentions may be, the *act* is one of dictation. Since
>>the point of the underlying OS is to increase the interconnections
>>between applications (assuming I've found the correct web page and
>>interpreted it correctly), the underlying architecture should be
>>language-neutral. That allows as many applications as possible to play
>>in the environment.
>>

> When the CLR is integrated, it will allow a wide array of problem
> solving choices for uuu users.


You've missed the point. Allowing a wide array of problem solving
choices is a goal, not a means. Instead of concentrating on adding
langauges, you should be provding an infrastructure that makes adding
langauges simple. The Plan 9 example does this best, as any language
that can do file I/O is supported.

It may be that CLR is just such an infrastructure (I'm not familiar
with it). In that case, instead of pushing Python, you should be
pushing CLR with IronPython as an option.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <(E-Mail Removed)> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Cisco 2611 and Cisco 1721 : Why , why , why ????? sam@nospam.org Cisco 10 05-01-2005 08:49 AM
Why, why, why??? =?Utf-8?B?VGltOjouLg==?= ASP .Net 6 01-27-2005 03:35 PM
Why Why Why You HAVE NO IDEA MCSE 31 04-24-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments