morning in Python

[castironpi]

I want to talk to the newsgroup. As I have found that its readers
will be non-trivially attentive, I esteem it a worthwhile production,
for finely divided values of worth & while. (Disclaimer: Don't call
me millionaire; life & money...). It is not clear that I will be
posting code first thing, for a range of values of I. (Yes I have
tackled decentralizatio n and contribution in identity before.)

It's possible that I just like to write, in which case, fol. the
foregoing, I might just like to write messages, plainly ignorant of
who replies. My name still works as castironpi, since I just don't
have e-mail. For the plot, though, I do not know who's reading by
name. If that makes me a villian, that's ok, mysteries are good.

I've evaluated *my* character, ladies & gentlemen, before. I just
know the trick, which may originate in the older stories of night and
day.

First things first, I try to represent story lines, which involves
some non-trivial automation of computer-modeled intelligence. It
involves live people too. You might be reading. I'm not.

From what plans I come with, it takes a second to infer that I'm on
the newsgroup, which generates some purified roles. This has some
consequences for my character upon entrance. It also complicates the
matter of getting to Python, connecting me with a larger fraction of
the community. I am on a computer and have made games. I've tried
Pygame.

I have a proposition to ask you all: Python emphasizes state. Is it
true?

[inhahe]

I'm not an expert in this but what does it mean to emphasize state? It
seems the opposite of that would be a) functional programming, and b)
passing parameters instead of using global or relatively local variables.
And maybe c) coroutines (generators as implemented in Python), although
perhaps coroutines could be said to emphasize state inasmuch as they go out
of their way to capture, objectify and reuse it (Stackless' microthreads,
even moreso). And Python seems to be well-noted for implementing some
functional programming methodology, and as for passing parameters it's just
as object-oriented as the rest of them.

But as I said, I'm not an expert, so let me know if I've gone astray..

I have a proposition to ask you all: Python emphasizes state. Is it
true?

[George Sakkis]

On May 16, 11:58*am, "inhahe" <inh...@gmail.c omwrote:

I'm not an expert in this but what does it mean to emphasize state? *It
seems the opposite of that would be a) functional programming, and b)
passing parameters instead of using global or relatively local variables.
And maybe c) coroutines (generators as implemented in Python), although
perhaps coroutines could be said to emphasize state inasmuch as they go out
of their way to capture, objectify and reuse it (Stackless' microthreads,
even moreso). *And Python seems to be well-noted for implementing some
functional programming methodology, and as for passing parameters it's just
as object-oriented as the rest of them.

But as I said, I'm not an expert, so let me know if I've gone astray..

I have a proposition to ask you all: Python emphasizes state. *Is it
true?

Please don't feed the bots.

[inhahe]

"George Sakkis" <ge***********@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:19******** *************** ***********@m3g 2000hsc.googleg roups.com...
On May 16, 11:58 am, "inhahe" <inh...@gmail.c omwrote:

I'm not an expert in this but what does it mean to emphasize state? It
seems the opposite of that would be a) functional programming, and b)
passing parameters instead of using global or relatively local variables.
And maybe c) coroutines (generators as implemented in Python), although
perhaps coroutines could be said to emphasize state inasmuch as they go
out
of their way to capture, objectify and reuse it (Stackless' microthreads,
even moreso). And Python seems to be well-noted for implementing some
functional programming methodology, and as for passing parameters it's
just
as object-oriented as the rest of them.

But as I said, I'm not an expert, so let me know if I've gone astray..

I have a proposition to ask you all: Python emphasizes state. Is it
true?

Please don't feed the bots.

--
I figured the question was interesting enough to warrant discussion whether
it was a bot or not. But i'm not an avid forum user, so maybe I'm wrong.

Also, if it's a bot I'm floored and the man who wrote it could probably
solve cancer and world hunger with five lines of asm.

[Dan Upton]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM, inhahe <in****@gmail.c omwrote:

>
"George Sakkis" <ge***********@ gmail.comwrote in message
news:19******** *************** ***********@m3g 2000hsc.googleg roups.com...
On May 16, 11:58 am, "inhahe" <inh...@gmail.c omwrote:

>I'm not an expert in this but what does it mean to emphasize state? It
seems the opposite of that would be a) functional programming, and b)
passing parameters instead of using global or relatively local variables.
And maybe c) coroutines (generators as implemented in Python), although
perhaps coroutines could be said to emphasize state inasmuch as they go
out
of their way to capture, objectify and reuse it (Stackless' microthreads,
even moreso). And Python seems to be well-noted for implementing some
functional programming methodology, and as for passing parameters it's
just
as object-oriented as the rest of them.

But as I said, I'm not an expert, so let me know if I've gone astray..

I have a proposition to ask you all: Python emphasizes state. Is it
true?

Please don't feed the bots.

--
I figured the question was interesting enough to warrant discussion whether
it was a bot or not. But i'm not an avid forum user, so maybe I'm wrong.

Also, if it's a bot I'm floored and the man who wrote it could probably
solve cancer and world hunger with five lines of asm.

Yeah... when he/she/it first appeared the replies were at least mostly
lucid, if not necessarily helpful, and spawned a few interesting
discussions. Recently it's gone downhill... Could be some sort of bot
that was trying to learn 'speech' patterns and it overloaded its
database. (I've seen that happen on at least one chatbot...)

[castironpi]

Full day later, I think it, to emphasize state, would prioritize
context. The reason for the huge ramble was, believe it or not,
namespace conflict... as though any other states around here might
nose in. And thanks to 'inhahe' for coming back with the
question. ...Which would explain next move to 'prioritize context'.
Context is a high priority for people.

I'm proposing to start on one on a computer. The first things a
computer 'knows' are the boot, keyboard, & mouse. Yet on another
scale, the first things it knows are BIOS, file system, and OS. On
still another, the only thing it knows are interruptions. Knowledge
is important to context. (The scales are ram on disk on, ram on disk
off, and ram off, which may tell of the currency they and their power
are bought with. Thence, we should be getting different values for
lengths of time.)

(Furthermore, we're all on different longitudes -and- latitudes.)

Context comes from motion, perception, and composite perception
(reperception e.a.o. memory). There is some reason to believe that
motion and sight are different senses, perhaps so with stationary
sound (gatcha) and mobile sound too. Do you go deaf of a tone after
prolonged duration? That makes computers valuable commodities*: they
have a symbolic interface, which no other unlive objects have. They
have both mouse and keyboard.

*I'm sure there is a precision to wants: what magnitude of what types
of action a person wants from a day and for a time-- what energy
states they go to and from (note phone on come to and come from.)

Therefore, context should originate in mouse and keyboard.

Humans have symbolic know-how: knowledge of how to convey intent
digitally, though it may be there is no interpolation of 'intent per
mouse-or-key', even though people are prone to empathize with faces.
However, if you start with a 'me' and a 'no', you can get pretty
logical.

Intent per mouse-and-key isn't necessarily scalar, three-dimensional,
or rationally dimensional (?), though they do have magnitudes per mass
and volume. The contingent of 'rationally dimensional' is having or
beknowing/benouncing an orthonormal basis. Incidentally,
'''orthography of a language specifies the correct way of using a
specific writing system to write the language. .. Orthography is
derived from Greek ὀ�θός orthós ("correct")a nd γ�άφειν gráphein ("to
write").''' - wikipedia.

Further incidentally, context and state may have more important in
common than priority and price: privacy and safety are involved ex
hypothesi. Incidentally = ...

It is not clear that the first (cheapest best) human-computer language
is a computer language, though if two were orthonormal in comparison
to life, Python's fine. Not my first.

In privacy concerns, it is not clear that duals aren't primitives to
humans. What's a brain primitive? Lol: what is a primitive brain?


On May 16, 10:58Â*am, "inhahe" <inh...@gmail.c omwrote:

I'm not an expert in this but what does it mean to emphasize state? Â*It
seems the opposite of that would be a) functional programming, and b)
passing parameters instead of using global or relatively local variables.
And maybe c) coroutines (generators as implemented in Python), although
perhaps coroutines could be said to emphasize state inasmuch as they go out
of their way to capture, objectify and reuse it (Stackless' microthreads,
even moreso). Â*And Python seems to be well-noted for implementing some
functional programming methodology, and as for passing parameters it's just
as object-oriented as the rest of them.

But as I said, I'm not an expert, so let me know if I've gone astray..

I have a proposition to ask you all: Python emphasizes state. Â*Is it
true?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[=?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiB2LiBMw7Z3aXMi?=]

Full day later, I think it, to emphasize state, would prioritize

context. The reason for the huge ramble was, believe it or not,
namespace conflict... as though any other states around here might
nose in.

I think the namespace conflict is rather in cities than in states.
For example, there are several cities called "Berlin", but only
one state (that I know of) is called "Mecklenbur g-Vorpommern".
In some cases, prefixing helps, e.g. you don't call it "York"
when that already exists, but "New York".

There is also the issue of aliases. Some call it Moscow, some Moskau,
when it is really called Мо�ква. Of course, the same issue exists
for states: some call it Kalifornien, others California.

And thanks to 'inhahe' for coming back with the
question. ...Which would explain next move to 'prioritize context'.
Context is a high priority for people.

I'd rather say that priority is a high context.

Regards,
Martin

[Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:15:06 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

>Full day later, I think it, to emphasize state, would prioritize
context. The reason for the huge ramble was, believe it or not,
namespace conflict... as though any other states around here might
nose in.

I think the namespace conflict is rather in cities than in states.
For example, there are several cities called "Berlin", but only
one state (that I know of) is called "Mecklenbur g-Vorpommern".
In some cases, prefixing helps, e.g. you don't call it "York"
when that already exists, but "New York".

The state or the city "New York"!? And wasn't the city object bound to
the name "New Amsterdam" once? :-)

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

[Ivan Illarionov]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 11:15:06 +0200, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

There is also the issue of aliases. Some call it Moscow, some Moskau,
when it is really called Мо�ква. Of course, the same issue exists for
states: some call it Kalifornien, others California.

I don't see any issues here. Everybody call it "Moscow" when they speak
English and "Мо�кв а" when they speak Russian. Calling it "Мо�кв а" or
"Moskva" in English would be simply not correct and confusing.

-- Ivan

[inhahe]

>It is not clear that the first (cheapest best) human->computer language
is a computer language, though if two were orthonormal >in comparison
to life, Python's fine. Not my first.

The utterly dry, closed, logical, definitive, hierarchical, consistent,
determinate nature of a computer language is the only thing that will
facilitate anything useful on something as utterly stupid (and not to
mention logical, definite and determined) as a computer.

I mean it, computers are /really/ stupid. They're literally
stupider than a bug. We just like things we can control.

The requisites I have for a computer language are:

Efficiency (speed)
Elegance of syntax
Powerful (conceptual-wise) abstractions

Python has delicious abstractions that make doing a lot of things really
easy and fun to think about.
Stackless Python adds even more to that with continuations.
Also Python's dynamic (another aspect of being powerful conceptual-wise)
But most of all, I love its syntax. Guido is the awesome.
(BTW, I won't even use any language that uses := for assignment. I just
refuse. I don't care what the language has.)

The speed/efficiency issue depends on the task at hand. For most things I
use Python. But assembly isn't out of the question, and it's fun to code
in. I also find C/C++ an elegant language. Most things just don't need
that speed. And Python is 50 times easier to code in than C/C++ and 1000
times easier to debug in.

I also like C#.

My ideal language would be a natively compiling cross between C++ and
Python. Objects declared with a type would be statically typed, objects not
declared with a type would be dynamically typed. There would also be
keywords to declare that class names won't be reassigned and class
attributes won't be deleted. Those attributes would be referred to by
offset, not hast table keys. f