473,902 Members | 3,908 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

"Python" is not a good name, should rename to "Athon"

Python is a good programming language, but "Python" is not a good
name.

First, python also means snake, Monty Python. If we search "python" in
google, emule, many results are not programming resource. If we search
PHP, all results are programming resource.

Second, python also means snake, snake is not a good thing in western
culture. Many people dislike any things relevant to snake. We must
have high regard for the custom.

Now, python3000 is coming. It's the best time to rename!

Athon is a good candidate, you could provide better names.

In Athon, the first letter "A" could pronounce as [ e ] .
Nov 30 '07
92 4020
Russ P. wrote:
Python is an "acceptable " name, but Newton1 (or Newton3) would be
a great name.
Nah, I like Monty and Snakes. Newton already has his name as unit
for kg*m/s^2. :)

Regards,
Björn

--
BOFH excuse #74:

You're out of memory

Dec 2 '07 #41
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:55:32 -0800, Russ P. wrote:
I neither know nor care much about Newton's personality and social
graces, but I can assure you that he was more than a "technician " (no
offense to technicians).

If you just read the Wikipedia preamble about him you will realize that
he is arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived.
"Arguably" is right.

Please, stop with the fanboy squeeing over Newton. Enough is enough.
Newton has already received far more than his share of honours.

He might have been a great intellectual but he was no scientist. It's
only by ignoring the vast bulk of his work -- work which Newton himself
considered *far* more important and interesting than his work on physics
and mathematics -- that we can even *pretend* he was a scientist.

Newton was arrogant, deceitful, secretive, and hostile to other peoples
ideas. Arrogance sometimes goes hand in hand with intellectual
brilliance, and there's no doubt that Newton was brilliant, but the last
three are especially toxic for good science. His feuds against two of his
intellectual equals, Leibniz and Hooke, held mathematics and the sciences
back significantly. They weren't the only two: he feuded with Astronomer
Royal John Flamsteed, John Locke, and apparently more tradesmen than
anyone has counted. He held grudges, and did his best to ruin those who
crossed him.

Historians of science draw a fairly sharp line in the history of what
used to be called "natural philosophy" (what we now call science). That
line is clearly drawn *after* Newton: as John Maynard Smith has said,
Newton was the last and greatest of the magicians, not the first of the
scientists. He was first and foremost a theologian and politician, an
alchemist, a religious heretic obsessed with End Times, and (when he
wasn't being secretive and isolating himself from others) a shameless
self-promoter unwilling to share the spotlight.

The myth of Newton the scientist is pernicious. Even those who recognise
his long periods of unproductive work, his wasted years writing about the
end of the world, his feuds, his secrecy and his unprofessional grudges
against other natural philosophers, still describe him as a great
scientist -- despite the fact that Newton's way of working is anathema to
science. The myth of science being about the lone genius dies hard,
especially in popular accounts of science. Science is a collaborative
venture, like Open Source, and it relies on openness and cooperation, two
traits almost entirely missing in Newton.

There is no doubt that Newton was a great intellect. His influence on
mechanics (including astronomy) was grand and productive; that on optics
was mixed, but his alchemical writings have had no influence on modern
chemistry. Newton's calculus has been virtually put aside in favour of
Leibniz's terminology and notation. The great bulk of his work, his
theological writings, had little influence at the time and no lasting
influence at all.

Newton was lucky to live at a time of great intellectual activity. Had he
lived thirty years earlier, his secrecy would almost certainly have meant
that his discoveries, such as they were, would have died with him. Had he
lived thirty years later, others like Leibniz, Hooke, the Bernoullis, or
others, would have made his discoveries ahead of him -- perhaps a few
years or a decade later, but they would have done so, as Leibniz
independently came up with calculus.

There's no doubt that Newton was a genius and an important figure in the
history of science, but to describe him as a scientist is to distort both
the way Newton worked and the way science works. By all means give him
credit for what he did and what he was, but don't pretend he was
something that he was not.
--
Steven
Dec 2 '07 #42
He might have been a great intellectual but he was no scientist. It's
only by ignoring the vast bulk of his work -- work which Newton himself
considered *far* more important and interesting than his work on physics
and mathematics -- that we can even *pretend* he was a scientist.
The fact that someone studies theology does not mean that he cannot
also be considered a scientist. And if the person who discovered the
inverse-square law of universal gravitation is not a "scientist, " I
don't know who is.

At the time, no one else had even made the connection between things
falling on earth and the motion of the stars and planets. Sure, it
seems obvious to you and me, but it was far from obvious then.

In any case, Newton is just one example of a great mathematician/
scientist whose name could be used for a programming language.

Euler was an amazing mathematician (and also a nice guy with a large
family). His name would be great too, except that it's apparently
already taken. I don't know how widely used the Euler language is, but
if it is just some obscure language, then the name could perhaps still
be used. The other problem with Euler is that its pronunciation is not
obvious from the spelling.

Here's another interesting possibility: Pythagoras. It starts off with
the same first four letters as Python. Everyone's heard of the theorem
named after him (although he apparently did not discover it himself).
The main drawback here is that the name is a bit long at ten
characters.
Dec 2 '07 #43
Russ P. wrote:
I am surprised to see that Newton is not taken.
Not for a language, but there is a physics simulation
library called Newton -- which is a more appropriate
use of the name, I think. To me, he's more associated
with physics than mathematics.

If you want a really appropriate name for a programming
language, I'd suggest Babbage. (not for Python, though!)

--
Greg
Dec 3 '07 #44
On Dec 2, 4:47 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com .auwrote:
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:55:32 -0800, Russ P. wrote:
I neither know nor care much about Newton's personality and social
graces, but I can assure you that he was more than a "technician " (no
offense to technicians).
If you just read the Wikipedia preamble about him you will realize that
he is arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived.

"Arguably" is right.

Please, stop with the fanboy squeeing over Newton. Enough is enough.
Newton has already received far more than his share of honours.

He might have been a great intellectual but he was no scientist. It's
only by ignoring the vast bulk of his work -- work which Newton himself
considered *far* more important and interesting than his work on physics
and mathematics -- that we can even *pretend* he was a scientist.

Newton was arrogant, deceitful, secretive, and hostile to other peoples
ideas. Arrogance sometimes goes hand in hand with intellectual
brilliance, and there's no doubt that Newton was brilliant, but the last
three are especially toxic for good science. His feuds against two of his
intellectual equals, Leibniz and Hooke, held mathematics and the sciences
back significantly. They weren't the only two: he feuded with Astronomer
Royal John Flamsteed, John Locke, and apparently more tradesmen than
anyone has counted. He held grudges, and did his best to ruin those who
crossed him.

Historians of science draw a fairly sharp line in the history of what
used to be called "natural philosophy" (what we now call science). That
line is clearly drawn *after* Newton: as John Maynard Smith has said,
Newton was the last and greatest of the magicians, not the first of the
scientists. He was first and foremost a theologian and politician, an
alchemist, a religious heretic obsessed with End Times, and (when he
wasn't being secretive and isolating himself from others) a shameless
self-promoter unwilling to share the spotlight.

The myth of Newton the scientist is pernicious. Even those who recognise
his long periods of unproductive work, his wasted years writing about the
end of the world, his feuds, his secrecy and his unprofessional grudges
against other natural philosophers, still describe him as a great
scientist -- despite the fact that Newton's way of working is anathema to
science. The myth of science being about the lone genius dies hard,
especially in popular accounts of science. Science is a collaborative
venture, like Open Source, and it relies on openness and cooperation, two
traits almost entirely missing in Newton.

There is no doubt that Newton was a great intellect. His influence on
mechanics (including astronomy) was grand and productive; that on optics
was mixed, but his alchemical writings have had no influence on modern
chemistry. Newton's calculus has been virtually put aside in favour of
Leibniz's terminology and notation. The great bulk of his work, his
theological writings, had little influence at the time and no lasting
influence at all.
Being fair, the bulk of Liebniz' writings have also been rejected by
those in related fields. Most modern metaphysicians hold a view closer
to Boston Personalism or at least post-Kantian Personalism (a la
Buber), than monadic unity and pre-established harmony, a la Liebniz.
It is an instance of the genetic fallacy to reject the achievements of
a person in one field, simply because of their failures in another.
Newton was lucky to live at a time of great intellectual activity. Had he
lived thirty years earlier, his secrecy would almost certainly have meant
that his discoveries, such as they were, would have died with him. Had he
lived thirty years later, others like Leibniz, Hooke, the Bernoullis, or
others, would have made his discoveries ahead of him -- perhaps a few
years or a decade later, but they would have done so, as Leibniz
independently came up with calculus.

There's no doubt that Newton was a genius and an important figure in the
history of science, but to describe him as a scientist is to distort both
the way Newton worked and the way science works. By all means give him
credit for what he did and what he was, but don't pretend he was
something that he was not.

--
Steven
That said, I think this whole "rename python" thing is silly.

Regards,
Jordan
Dec 3 '07 #45
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:12:17 -0800, MonkeeSage wrote:
Being fair, the bulk of Liebniz' writings have also been rejected by
those in related fields. Most modern metaphysicians hold a view closer
to Boston Personalism or at least post-Kantian Personalism (a la Buber),
than monadic unity and pre-established harmony, a la Liebniz. It is an
instance of the genetic fallacy to reject the achievements of a person
in one field, simply because of their failures in another.
I'm not suggesting that Leibniz was any more of a scientist than Newton
was, nor am I suggesting that Newton's achievements should be *rejected*
(er, except for those pesky Quantum Mechanics and Relativity things...).
I'm just saying that we should understand Newton for what he actually
was, and not based on the 18th Century revisionism.
--
Steven
Dec 3 '07 #46
On Dec 3, 7:23 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com .auwrote:
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:12:17 -0800, MonkeeSage wrote:
Being fair, the bulk of Liebniz' writings have also been rejected by
those in related fields. Most modern metaphysicians hold a view closer
to Boston Personalism or at least post-Kantian Personalism (a la Buber),
than monadic unity and pre-established harmony, a la Liebniz. It is an
instance of the genetic fallacy to reject the achievements of a person
in one field, simply because of their failures in another.

I'm not suggesting that Leibniz was any more of a scientist than Newton
was, nor am I suggesting that Newton's achievements should be *rejected*
(er, except for those pesky Quantum Mechanics and Relativity things...).
I'm just saying that we should understand Newton for what he actually
was, and not based on the 18th Century revisionism.

--
Steven
Fair enough. Understanding a person in their own context, especially
given the modern tendency to appropriate anything remotely similar to
the modern view as their own, is a rare quality (at least among
philosophers). I'm not a 'Newtonian fanboy' as it were, I just dislike
the uniformitarian push for a "one right view" of physics/metaphysics,
as if there were no room for innovation!

Regards,
Jordan
Dec 3 '07 #47
On Dec 3, 5:23 am, Steven D'Aprano
I'm not suggesting that Leibniz was any more of a scientist than Newton
was, nor am I suggesting that Newton's achievements should be *rejected*
(er, except for those pesky Quantum Mechanics and Relativity things...).
I'm just saying that we should understand Newton for what he actually
was, and not based on the 18th Century revisionism.
Your claim that Newton was "not a scientist" says more about you than
it does about him. He is widely regarded -- by physicists and many
other scientists -- not only as a scientist, but as the most important
one who ever lived.

That is obviously a matter of opinion, so it would be rather silly to
argue the matter. But the idea that he was not even a scientist is one
that I have never heard from anyone but you.

Why anyone would hold a personal grudge against someone who lived
centuries ago is beyond me. I suspect it is perhaps because you don't
care for Newton's theology.

As for that "pesky relativity thing," some physicists claim that
Newton's physics (as opposed to interpretations , simplifications , and
revisions by others) were actually consistent with relativity. I think
Newton was smarter than you realize.

His name would be a great honor for a programming to have. But, alas,
it appears that many in the Python community prefer a snake that is
half the name of a comedy team. So be it. As I said before, a name is
just a name. It might as well be called "cockroach" as far as I am
concerned.
Dec 3 '07 #48
On 2007-12-03, Russ P. <Ru**********@g mail.comwrote:
On Dec 3, 5:23 am, Steven D'Aprano
>I'm not suggesting that Leibniz was any more of a scientist
than Newton was, nor am I suggesting that Newton's
achievements should be *rejected* (er, except for those pesky
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity things...). I'm just saying
that we should understand Newton for what he actually was, and
not based on the 18th Century revisionism.

Your claim that Newton was "not a scientist" says more about
you than it does about him. He is widely regarded -- by
physicists and many other scientists -- not only as a
scientist, but as the most important one who ever lived.
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Newton was too successful.
Over-veneration of Newton was eventually an impediment to
progress--this was not, of course, his fault.

--
Neil Cerutti
Dec 3 '07 #49
On Dec 3, 2007 4:40 PM, Russ P. <Ru**********@g mail.comwrote:
As I said before, a name is
just a name. It might as well be called "cockroach" as far as I am
concerned.

Unluckily "the Beatles" was already taken :-)

francesco
Dec 3 '07 #50

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

7
1900
by: Tim Smith | last post by:
Do you have a good name for a class that is both routes and transforms a message? Somehow transouter or routformer doesnt jive, and a most things that route,send, direct don't also transform, and things that convert or change don't also route? Any ideas? Trying to avoid two words as well. Should have taken more English classes along with Comp Sci :-)
5
1489
by: puzzlecracker | last post by:
public delegate MessageHandler(Request request) public sealed class Connection{ public event MessageHandler handler; private void ExecuteMassageHandler(Request request) {
0
11279
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. Here is my compilation command: g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp Here is the code in...
0
10872
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that captivates audiences and drives business growth. The Art of Business Website Design Your website is...
1
10981
by: Hystou | last post by:
Overview: Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For most users, this new feature is actually very convenient. If you want to control the update process,...
0
10499
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
0
9675
agi2029
by: agi2029 | last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own.... Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
0
5893
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
0
6085
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
2
4307
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
3
3323
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating effective websites that not only look great but also perform exceptionally well. In this comprehensive...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.