Python and Flaming Thunder

[Dave Parker]

I've read that one of the design goals of Python was to create an easy-
to-use English-like language. That's also one of the design goals of
Flaming Thunder at http://www.flamingthunder.com/ , which has proven
easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.

[castironpi]

On May 12, 6:39*pm, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

I've read that one of the design goals of Python was to create an easy-
to-use English-like language. *That's also one of the design goals of
Flaming Thunder athttp://www.flamingthunder.com/*, which has proven
easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.

Can you render some furniture for me... to try to see some human
posture to lowest energy levels.

[Dave Parker]

On May 12, 6:32*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

Can you render some furniture for me... to try to see some human
posture to lowest energy levels.

Not yet; Flaming Thunder doesn't have built-in graphics yet. But
we're incorporating the graphics from www.dpgraph.com , so when that's
finished, then yes Flaming Thunder will be able to render furniture
and calculate energy levels.

If I remember correctly, I think that NASA did some experiments many
years ago on human posture and found that laying back (like the
astronauts do at takeoff) minimized stress on the human body due to
high g-forces.

[Dave Parker]

On May 12, 6:32*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

Can you render some furniture for me... to try to see some human
posture to lowest energy levels.

I couldn't find any furniture created using DPGraph, but the math art
gallery at http://www.dpgraph.com/math-art.html has a sailboat, an
F15, Tux (the Linux penguin), a lampshade, and lots of other things
that will soon be doable in Flaming Thunder.

[castironpi]

On May 12, 7:59*pm, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

On May 12, 6:32*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

Can you render some furniture for me... to try to see some human
posture to lowest energy levels.

I couldn't find any furniture created using DPGraph, but the math art
gallery athttp://www.dpgraph.com/math-art.htmlhas a sailboat, an
F15, Tux (the Linux penguin), a lampshade, and lots of other things
that will soon be doable in Flaming Thunder.

Mine's been always messing up the color wheel. Do you see anything
analytic* / theoretically necessary / a priori / physical / physically
induced about that?

*Now that's a word from Philosophy Syntax--- pertaining to inherent
definitions of words, any and all.

[Dave Parker]

On May 12, 7:12*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

Mine's been always messing up the color wheel.

Messing up in what way? Are you using the colors to visualize
something?

[castironpi]

On May 12, 8:18*pm, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

On May 12, 7:12*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

Mine's been always messing up the color wheel.

Messing up in what way? *Are you using the colors to visualize
something?

In a manner of speaking. I'm a first-time-live Information scientist,
just out of work. LIS at school and plenty of computer study, which
is fine. Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

[Dave Parker]

On May 12, 7:20*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>*Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism )? It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.

[castironpi]

On May 12, 8:36*pm, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

On May 12, 7:20*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

*Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism)? *It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.

I do hold an argument that one can make too much money for one's own
good quality of life. Am I trying to visualize thermal (and ergo
possibly chemical too) gradients (thermovoltaic)? Yes in part. I'm
pretty generally interested, but where can print layout take you?
Microsales?

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Dave Parker wrote:

On May 12, 7:20Â*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism )? It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
getting a filter to work, as I did (so I only see his postings being
quoted... a huge relief!)

Diez

[castironpi]

On May 13, 4:18*am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[e-mail]:

Dave Parker wrote:

On May 12, 7:20*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism)? *It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
getting a filter to work, as I did (so I only see his postings being
quoted... a huge relief!)

Diez

I hate to ignore work. Who is the non-virtual equivalent mumble?

[castironpi]

On May 13, 4:52*am, [e-mail] wrote:

On May 13, 4:18*am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[e-mail]:

Dave Parker wrote:

On May 12, 7:20*pm, [e-mail] wrote:
>>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism)?*It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
I only see his postings being
quoted... a huge relief!)

Diez

I hate to ignore work. *Who is the non-virtual equivalent mumble?- Hide quoted text -

However, that's just the sunrise I would be talking about. How are
the soft drinks here? Does anyone else have a t.v.? I don't like
mine or have one.

[Dave Parker]

On May 12, 11:52*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

I do hold an argument that one can make too much money for one's own
good quality of life.

As do I; I think there is an optimal amount. Too little, and you
waste time gathering food. Too much, and you waste time gathering
money.

Am I trying to visualize thermal (and ergo
possibly chemical too) gradients (thermovoltaic)? *Yes in part.

Some of those DPGraph (and soon, Flaming Thunder) may be able to help
with.

I'm pretty generally interested, but where can print layout take you?

Not far, especially with books disappearing. Our library says that
these days, only 25% of their checkouts are books; the other 75% are
DVDs, CDs, etc.

Microsales?

And getting microer every day.

[Dave Parker]

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. There is value in all
interaction. Flaming Thunder is itself the averaging of interactions
with many computer languages and conversations with many people, so as
to create a language that allows people to tell a computer what they
want it to do, without having to know very much about how the computer
does it.

On May 13, 3:18*am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[e-mail]:

Dave Parker wrote:

On May 12, 7:20*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism)? *It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
getting a filter to work, as I did (so I only see his postings being
quoted... a huge relief!)

Diez

[castironpi]

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction. *Flaming Thunder is itself the averaging of interactions
with many computer languages and conversations with many people, so as
to create a language that allows people to tell a computer what they
want it to do, without having to know very much about how the computer
does it.

On May 13, 3:18*am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[e-mail]:

Dave Parker wrote:

On May 12, 7:20*pm, [e-mail] wrote:
>>Yes, I am trying to visualize something.

If it is related to making furniture comfortable for humans, have you
considered painting the furniture with thermochromic paint (
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism)?*It changes color in
response to temperature, which in part is determined by how hard a
body is pressed against it because close contact tends to trap heat.
An evenly distributed color might indicated evenly distributed
pressure.

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi - he's the virtual equivalent
of a mumbling mad man in this group. Ignorance serves best as remedy - and
getting a filter to work, as I did (so I only see his postings being
quoted... a huge relief!)

Diez- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I got hung-up on your sailboat and it took me to coffee. But I return
empty-handed, and castironpi does not bother me. All I try to do in
life is write video games. I am not convinced that the colorspace
occupies three dimensions necessarily. But I do like sailboats and
furniture.

I am into city planning, roadways, infrastructure, but don't work -
too- hard. Furniture can be pretty stock and utility on the micro
level--- there's just been runs on the banks before to microize to
certain energy/mass/volume/metabolism levels. People like stuff and
pull.

If I can get a word in, I also like to distribute economy, and
microize currency. So long as currency stays current, nobody minds.
Do you need something done... or said?

[Paul McGuire]

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

[Dave Parker]

On May 13, 7:44*am, [e-mail] wrote:

I am not convinced that the colorspace occupies three dimensions necessarily.

Apparently there are some people -- called tetrachromats -- who can
see color in four dimensions. They have extra sets of cones in their
retinas containing a different photopigment. So, the dimensions of
color appear to be an artifact of our visual systems, and not inherent
in the colors themselves which are linear (one-dimensional) in
frequency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

[castironpi]

On May 13, 9:05*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 7:44*am, [e-mail] wrote:

I am not convinced that the colorspace occupies three dimensions necessarily.

Apparently there are some people -- called tetrachromats -- who can
see color in four dimensions. *They have extra sets of cones in their
retinas containing a different photopigment. *So, the dimensions of
color appear to be an artifact of our visual systems, and not inherent
in the colors themselves which are linear (one-dimensional) in
frequency. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy

My conspiracy theorists know too much. They would question that
mathematical claim of science, that retinas only detect one dimension
of one force. Are we asking if something like that is fundamental to
life? I have been very sceptical about emperical claims, especially
since I just try to render stuff and play Tron.

[hdante]

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

[castironpi]

On May 13, 9:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is a tank a tank of? Even if it does, developer communities are
willing to sustain it. That's a pretty colinear judgement, that I
find the community sustainable. Does anyone commute to out of
control? What is to out? No jumping down thrown. Tut tut.

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Dave Parker wrote:

>Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. There is value in all
interaction. Flaming Thunder is itself the averaging of interactions
with many computer languages and conversations with many people, so as
to create a language that allows people to tell a computer what they
want it to do, without having to know very much about how the computer
does it.

Well, if your actual goal is to create traffic to promote your own product
(I presume so from your mailaddress) then I'm not surprised that you not
*really* care who is responding how...

Diez

[castironpi]

On May 13, 9:45*am, [e-mail] wrote:

On May 13, 9:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is a tank a tank of? *Even if it does, developer communities are
willing to sustain it. *That's a pretty colinear judgement, that I
find the community sustainable. *Does anyone commute to out of
control? *What is to out? *No jumping down thrown. *Tut tut.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now, speaking of thrown: do try-di-di*3es not mean what we're thap
that they used to!

<celebration>

[Dave Parker]

The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free

software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.

But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.

On May 13, 8:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[castironpi]

On May 13, 10:24*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. *Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). *So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. *This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. *Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. *The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.

But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.

On May 13, 8:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How come no one said lightning?

[castironpi]

On May 13, 10:24*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. *Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). *So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. *This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. *Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. *The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.

But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.

On May 13, 8:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is about $0?

[castironpi]

On May 13, 10:24*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. *Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). *So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. *This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. *Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. *The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.

But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.

On May 13, 8:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Flaming Thunder, the lightning one, looked like [ 255, 210, 255 ], but
the next thing I thought was -40 on green.

[castironpi]

On May 13, 10:35*am, [e-mail] wrote:

On May 13, 10:24*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. *Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). *So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. *This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. *Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. *The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.

But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.

On May 13, 8:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Flaming Thunder, the lightning one, looked like [ 255, 210, 255 ], but
the next thing I thought was -40 on green.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Now get this: I am talking to someone. #define someone now.

[Dan Upton]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Dave Parker
<da********@flamingthunder.comwrote:

The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

Bah, subscription for a programming language? As far as I'm
concerned, that's reason enough not to bother with it. Paying a
one-time fee, or even once per upgrade, for a full-featured IDE and
lots of support tools is painful but at least justifiable, whereas
paying a yearly license just to even be able to try something out when
there are so many free, sufficient options... There was an article
on/in Wired not so long ago about the economics of free, and how
there's a huge difference mentally between free and not-free, even if
the practical difference is "free" and "$0.01." (Also, I assume
hdante meant, at least partly, free as in speech, not free as in
beer.)

As an aside, I clearly haven't written anything in FT, but looking at
your examples I don't know that I would want to--there's something
that feels very unnatural about writing English as code. It also
somehow seems a bit verbose, while one of the strengths of something
like Python (since that's what you're comparing it to) is rapid
implementation. Just using your "Set ... to" idiom, rather than a
regular = assignment, makes things much more wordy, without improving
readability. Some of your other structures are awkward, for instance
"Something is a function doing" Again, more text with arguably no gain
in readability.

Just my two cents, anyway. I now return you to the resident madman,
who I see has sent 4 or 5 messages while I was typing this one...

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Dave Parker writes:

[...]

Perhaps. Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an
individual (and even less per individual for site licenses), which
is less than the cost of just one book on Python.

First of all: Although I consider myself part of the Free Software
community, I have no problems at all with such a licence model.

But ...

[...]

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. This
weekend, Python users will still be debating how to fix
awkwardnesses in the languages (such as FOR loops where you're
just counting the loops and not referencing the loop variable) --
but Flaming Thunder users will be getting work done using the
REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be implementing.

Well, this is besides the point in my opinion. First, what you
consider a wart may be loved by someone else. I for example would
consider a "REPEAT n TIMES" feature as Ruby offers it (and soon FT
apparently) ugly because it is superfluous.

And secondly, *every* language has their warts. So many languages
start as clean babies because they offer little and focus on a
specific domain. But grown up, they include the same dirty tricks
and suprising corners as the big languages.

For me being a physicist and a hobby programmer, FT still is a toy
language. Cute but titchy. It surely has its applications, but if
you produce pocket calculators, don't tell a computer manufacturer
that your machines are much simpler to use. Instead, both things
simply have their purposes.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months
and those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. The
difference: I can't afford to ignore users.

Really, the Python developers listen *very* carefully what the users
want. Of course, the response time in Python is months rather than
days, which has turned out to be a good thing more than once.

Tschö,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
Jabber ID: br*****@jabber.org
(See http://ime.webhop.org for further contact info.)

[Dave Parker]

... there's something that feels very unnatural about writing English as code.

I think it is ironic that you think Flaming Thunder is unnatural
because it is more English-like, when being English-like was one of
Python's goals: "Python was designed to be a highly readable language.
It aims toward an uncluttered visual layout, using English keywords
frequently where other languages use punctuation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_..._and_semantics

Just using your "Set ... to" idiom, rather than a
regular = assignment, makes things much more wordy, without improving
readability.

I think it does improve readability, especially for people who are not
very fluent mathematically.

Also, in Python how do you assign a symbolic equation to a variable?
Like this?

QuadraticEquation = a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0

Set statements avoid the confusion of multiple equal signs when
manipulating symbolic equations:

Set QuadraticEquation to a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0.

On May 13, 9:50*am, "Dan Upton" <[e-mail]:

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM, Dave Parker

<[e-mail]:

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free

*software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
*specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
*programming languages.

*Perhaps. *Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
*(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
*the cost of just one book on Python.

Bah, subscription for a programming language? *As far as I'm
concerned, that's reason enough not to bother with it. *Paying a
one-time fee, or even once per upgrade, for a full-featured IDE and
lots of support tools is painful but at least justifiable, whereas
paying a yearly license just to even be able to try something out when
there are so many free, sufficient options... There was an article
on/in Wired not so long ago about the economics of free, and how
there's a huge difference mentally between free and not-free, even if
the practical difference is "free" and "$0.01." *(Also, I assume
hdante meant, at least partly, free as in speech, not free as in
beer.)

As an aside, I clearly haven't written anything in FT, but looking at
your examples I don't know that I would want to--there's something
that feels very unnatural about writing English as code. *It also
somehow seems a bit verbose, while one of the strengths of something
like Python (since that's what you're comparing it to) is rapid
implementation. *Just using your "Set ... to" idiom, rather than a
regular = assignment, makes things much more wordy, without improving
readability. *Some of your other structures are awkward, for instance
"Something is a function doing" Again, more text with arguably no gain
in readability.

Just my two cents, anyway. *I now return you to the resident madman,
who I see has sent 4 or 5 messages while I was typing this one...

[Diez B. Roggisch]

True. But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI

scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
server. And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
libraries. And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have
OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
Flaming Thunder already does.

Your bets don't count anything here. These things don't exist, so don't brag
on them being superior.

For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. But maybe for
other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
acceptable.

Quite a revealing statement I'd say. And unless you don't show any
real-world site running on FT that needs things like sessions, cookies,
database-connectivity, unicode and a ton more of stuff FT doesn't support
out-of-the-box or through 3rd-party-libs, I wouldn't mention "the people"
as well. So far, *all* that you've been showing on your site regarding CGI
are toy-scripts. Nothing more.

>And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.

Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. I've found
that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
of products that were easy for the developer.

This shows how much you don't know about customers, and their needs. A
customer gives a s**t about 5-10 times faster sites. They care if it is
*fast enough*, but beyond that they don't bother. But what *always* bothers
them is development time & flexibility. Because that directly affects the
price they pay.

And if a average man-day costs $600 (which is not expensive), and the
project is of average size of a couple of man-months - well, you care about
mathematics, do the math yourself what that means that FT lacks anything
but a simple CGI-interface.

And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
(which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.

It does require more, because it lacks all the libs and 3rdparty-libs. And
because it lacks features such as OO and other stuff, it will be harder to
write these as well as use them.

Show me how to beat a quickstarted TurboGears/Django webproject. *Then* you
can talk business here.

Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):

Write 10^2.

but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
8 (Python):

Print 10^2

then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
realm of measurable ease-of-use.

Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when
is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...

Even *if* that would be true, how does a perceived advantage in one field FT
was explicitly created for show that it is the generally better one and
understandable one for more diverse applications?
Diez

[Diez B. Roggisch]

then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the

realm of measurable ease-of-use.

Oh, would you please additionally comment on the ease of use of FT in the
domain of string-manipulation, regular expressions, collection datatypes?

I'm keen to know which 5-10 times faster FT-driven site out there deals with
user-input without these....

Diez

[Dave Parker]

Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when

is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...

All of the calculators and textbooks that elementary school students
use, use "^" for powers. Just like Flaming Thunder does. I haven't
seen "**" for powers since FORTRAN.

On May 13, 10:38*am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <[e-mail]:

True. *But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI
scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
server. *And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
libraries. *And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have
OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
Flaming Thunder already does.

Your bets don't count anything here. These things don't exist, so don't brag
on them being superior.

For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. *But maybe for
other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
acceptable.

Quite a revealing statement I'd say. And unless you don't show any
real-world site running on FT that needs things like sessions, cookies,
database-connectivity, unicode and a ton more of stuff FT doesn't support
out-of-the-box or through 3rd-party-libs, I wouldn't mention "the people"
as well. So far, *all* that you've been showing on your site regarding CGI
are toy-scripts. Nothing more.

And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.

Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. *I've found
that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
of products that were easy for the developer.

This shows how much you don't know about customers, and their needs. A
customer gives a s**t about 5-10 times faster sites. They care if it is
*fast enough*, but beyond that they don't bother. But what *always* bothers
them is development time & flexibility. Because that directly affects the
price they pay.

And if a average man-day costs $600 (which is not expensive), and the
project is of average size of a couple of man-months - well, you care about
mathematics, do the math yourself what that means that FT lacks anything
but a simple CGI-interface.

And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
(which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.

It does require more, because it lacks all the libs and 3rdparty-libs. And
because it lacks features such as OO and other stuff, it will be harder to
write these as well as use them.

Show me how to beat a quickstarted TurboGears/Django webproject. *Then* you
can talk business here.

Perhaps. *But if elementary school students can easily understand why
one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):

* Write 10^2.

but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
8 (Python):

* Print 10^2

then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
realm of measurable ease-of-use.

Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when
is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...

Even *if* that would be true, how does a perceived advantage in one field FT
was explicitly created for show that it is the generally better one and
understandable one for more diverse applications?

Diez

[hdante]

On May 13, 12:24*pm, Dave Parker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. *Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). *So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. *This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. *Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. *The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.

But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.

On May 13, 8:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software !!!!
1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in beer). Read again my
answer, considering this.

[Dave Parker]

Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software !!!!

1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in beer). Read again my
answer, considering this.

I misread your meaning. In a sense, Flaming Thunder is even more free
than "free software". Flaming Thunder doesn't place any restrictions
on how you use your source code or the executables you create. There
is no GNU license that you need to worry about.

On May 13, 11:06*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 12:24*pm, Dave Parker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

Perhaps. *Flaming Thunder is only $19.95 per year for an individual
(and even less per individual for site licenses), which is less than
the cost of just one book on Python.

I think that many people will find that Flaming Thunder is easier to
use and understand than Python -- so for many people the amount of
time they save will be worth more than the cost of Flaming Thunder
(unless, of course, their time is worth $0).

Also, several users have rewritten their Python programs in Flaming
Thunder, and found that Flaming Thunder was 5 to 10 times faster
(Flaming Thunder compiles to native executables). *So again, since
many people value their time at more than $0, I think that many people
will find that Flaming Thunder is worth $19.95 per year.

Plus, me getting paid to work on Flaming Thunder is far more
motivating than me not getting paid to work on Python. *This weekend,
Python users will still be debating how to fix awkwardnesses in the
languages (such as FOR loops where you're just counting the loops and
not referencing the loop variable) -- but Flaming Thunder users will
be getting work done using the REPEAT n TIMES constructs that I'll be
implementing.

Python has been around about 15 years, yet still has those
awkwardnesses. *Flaming Thunder has been out less than 6 months and
those awkwardnesses are already getting fixed. *The difference: I
can't afford to ignore users.

But the future is one of the hardest things to predict, so we'll see.

On May 13, 8:34*am, hdante <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 10:58*am, Paul McGuire <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 8:32*am, Dave Parker <[e-mail]:

Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi

I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone. *There is value in all
interaction.

Not this interaction, I'm afraid. *What irritates *me* about
castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
here. *If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible. *These rambling
stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
his idea of a joke. *But they are certainly not worth your time in
trying to respond to them.

-- Paul

*I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P

*The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

*Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software !!!!
1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in beer). Read again my
answer, considering this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Diez B. Roggisch]

Dave Parker schrieb:

>Who has conducted the research that supports that statement? And since when
is ^ the better operator for "to the power of" that **? Because latex uses
it? I need to see the elementary school students who use that...

All of the calculators and textbooks that elementary school students
use, use "^" for powers. Just like Flaming Thunder does. I haven't
seen "**" for powers since FORTRAN.

I haven't seen a power operator in elementary school at all. And even
*if* I did see it, it would have been in the raised-text-variant, *not*
the caret that is a crutch.

Diez

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Dave Parker writes:

> Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software
!!!! 1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in
beer). Read again my answer, considering this.

I misread your meaning.

.... twice. Flaming Thunder itself is not free software, is it?

Tschö,
Torsten.

--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
Jabber ID: br*****@jabber.org
(See http://ime.webhop.org for further contact info.)

[D'Arcy J.M. Cain]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:57:10 +0300
"Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <mi******@gmail.comwrote:

Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
y".

OMG! It's COBOL.

Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
algorithms. If that wasn't true then pseudocode would look a lot more
like English than it does. In fact, pseudocode tends to look a lot
like Python.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da***@druid.net | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
[phone] (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

[Dan Upton]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Torsten Bronger
<br*****@physik.rwth-aachen.dewrote:

Hallöchen!
Dave Parker writes:

> Notice that I said "free software", not "*** FREE *** software
>!!!! 1!" (that is, free as in freedom, not free as in
>beer). Read again my answer, considering this.

>
I misread your meaning.

... twice. Flaming Thunder itself is not free software, is it?

For Dave, from FSF:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it
refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits
(freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Now that we're all on the same page, maybe third time's the charm for
a response about FT not being free...

[Dave Parker]

Time for me to get back to work now. Thank you all for your comments,
they will help to make Flaming Thunder a better product. I can see
that many people would like the ability to link to existing
applications and libraries, etc, so I will raise that on my priority
list.

[Grant Edwards]

On 2008-05-13, Dave Parker <da********@flamingthunder.comwrote:

And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have OO
features similar to Python before Python has the features that
Flaming Thunder already does.

Well, python will definitely never have a name that sounds like
a slang term for happens after you get food poisioning at a
Thai restaurant...

;)

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Edwin Meese made me
at wear CORDOVANS!!
visi.com

[Dan Upton]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Matthieu Brucher
<ma**************@gmail.comwrote:

>

Perhaps. But if elementary school students can easily understand why
one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):

Write 10^2.

but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
8 (Python):

Print 10^2

then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
realm of measurable ease-of-use.

Well...

>10**2

100

Why ^ ? There is no good reason why use ^ over ** and vice versa, so what
you try to prove is not with your example.

Actually, I'm a fan of ^ over ** for exponentiation, because it's a
good visual cue for "raising." (What if in LaTeX you had to write
$x**{y}$? :p) Meanwhile, I don't see what ^ has to do with the
regular XOR symbol.

On the other hand, I don't really go for arguments that language x is
better than language y because there are fewer things you have to tell
new students to just accept as something you have to do. (ie, sure,
teach Python over C or Java because it will take them less /time/ to
write hello world, but don't say "python is better because you don't
have to tell the students 'just accept you have to #include <stdio.h>,
and you have to int main(), and you have to printf instead of print")

[I V]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:39:25 -0700, Dave Parker wrote:

I've read that one of the design goals of Python was to create an easy-
to-use English-like language. That's also one of the design goals of
Flaming Thunder at http://www.flamingthunder.com/ , which has proven
easy enough for even elementary school students, even though it is
designed for scientists, mathematicians and engineers.

A COBOL for the 21st century! Just what we need.

[Terry Reedy]

"Dave Parker" <da********@flamingthunder.comwrote in message
news:f6**********************************@n1g2000p rb.googlegroups.com...
|5-10 times faster for what kind of code?

| Mostly numerical analysis and CGI scripting.

For numerical analysis, a fair comparison is Python with NumPy installed
(or the older versions thereof).

[MRAB]

On May 13, 6:32 pm, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[e-mail]:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:57:10 +0300
"Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <[e-mail]:

Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
y".

OMG! It's COBOL.

Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
algorithms. If that wasn't true then pseudocode would look a lot more
like English than it does. In fact, pseudocode tends to look a lot
like Python.

I once had to do a bit of scripting in AppleScript. The problem I
found was that AppleScript tries to be so much like natural English
that I never got a clear idea of whether something would be valid!

[John Machin]

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:57:10 +0300
"Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <mi******@gmail.comwrote:

>Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
y".

OMG! It's COBOL.

Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
algorithms.

IIRC the idea was so that managers could write programs in English. It
failed because nobody could write a parser that would handle something
like "The bottom line is that the stakeholder group requires the
situation going forward to be such as to facilitate the variable known
as x to provide the same outcome when stimulated by dereferencing as the
variable known as y".

[Janzert]

D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:57:10 +0300
"Andrii V. Mishkovskyi" <mi******@gmail.comwrote:

>Not everybody has grown in English-speaking community, you know. And
knowing math quite good, I prefer writing "x = y" instead of "Set x to
y".

OMG! It's COBOL.

Wasn't there an aborted attempt at writing a language based on English
back in the sixties or seventies? I seem to recall that it failed
mainly because it turns out that programmers don't like to speak in
English, even when it is their first language, to describe computer
algorithms. If that wasn't true then pseudocode would look a lot more
like English than it does. In fact, pseudocode tends to look a lot
like Python.

I don't always agree with him but I thought Dave Thomas' recent post[1]
about 'natural language like' programming languages was pretty spot on.
He is specifically talking about Domain Specific Languages (DSLs) but I
think it applies to general programming languages just as well.

Janzert

1. http://pragdave.blogs.pragprog.com/p...nguage-in.html

[miller.paul.w]

On May 13, 10:34 am, hdante <[e-mail]:

The "Flaming Thunder" looks promising, but without being free
software, it's unlikely it will create a large developer community,
specially considering both free general purpose and scientific
programming languages.

I'll agree that software libre has the advantage in creating a
community, but the fact that this language's environment is
proprietary need not be fatal. Consider the amount of work that gets
done every day using Maple, Matlab, and Mathematica, for instance. I
like software that's free (as in beer or as in speech) as much as the
next guy, but I paid for the student version of Mathematica, and I
consider it worth every single penny. I use it *at least* three or
four times a week, for stuff that'd be, at best, extremely tedious or,
at worst, impossible for me to do without it.

I took a quick look at this "Flaming Thunder," and downloaded the
command line Linux executable. While I haven't tried anything
nontrivial in the language, I have to say it has several things going
for it:

* Cross-platform-ness. I like the idea of being able to compile the
exact same source code for Linux, *BSD, Mac OS X, and Windows. If it
truly is "write once, compile for the world," that's a nice plus.

* Nice web site. Seriously. The web site is pretty slick looking,
and that can only be a plus. The design and color scheme definitely
remind me that this is an environment intended for scientific
computing.

* Nice name. This has got to be *the* coolest thing about the
language. I mean, how can you go wrong using a language named
"Flaming Thunder"? :)

[miller.paul.w]

On May 13, 6:14 pm, MRAB <[e-mail]:

On May 13, 6:32 pm, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <[e-mail]:

I once had to do a bit of scripting in AppleScript. The problem I
found was that AppleScript tries to be so much like natural English
that I never got a clear idea of whether something would be valid!

You have a great point here.

I recently read a blog posting that noted the same thing about Inform
7 (a specialized language used to write interactive fiction games) and
its English-like syntax. I've read completed games in Inform 7, and
they're very easy to understand, indeed. It does tend to read like
English, though somewhat stilted/formal/artificial.

Writing it, on the other hand (at least according to to said blog
post), is a bit more difficult. Because the syntax is *so* English-
like, one tends to want to write things that would be natural in
English. However, because the compiler doesn't actually understand
natural English, this frequently doesn't work.

Python, OTOH, definitely *doesn't* have this sort of impedance
mismatch for me. Python code looks like *code*, to be sure, but the
language allows you to forget about most of the nitty-gritty details
and just get stuff done. That's what I like about it -- *not* that
it's "English-like," in any way.

[Lie]

On May 13, 11:20*pm, Dave Parker <[e-mail]>
wrote:

5-10 times faster for what kind of code?

Mostly numerical analysis and CGI scripting. *All of Flaming Thunder's
library code is in assembly language, and Flaming Thunder creates
statically-linked pure syscall CGI scripts.

I don't see anything that resembles OO features of python, ...

True. *But in Python, you don't see statically-linked pure-syscall CGI
scripts being cross-compiled under Windows for ftp'ing up to a Linux
server. *And you don't see the speed of pure assembly language
libraries. *And I'll be willing to bet that Flaming Thunder will have
OO features similar to Python before Python has the features that
Flaming Thunder already does.

For many people, being 5 to 10 times faster at numerical analysis and
CGI scripting is reason enough to pay $19 per year. *But maybe for
other people, having slow, inefficient programs and websites is
acceptable.

I don't think so, even Microsoft, the huge money netter, realized that
nobody would use their new .NET framework if they don't provide free
compilers for it, they only sold their IDE, not their compilers (did I
mention that the Visual Studio Express is free as in beer? And Express
isn't a crippled compiler)

And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles.

Depends on whether you're the programmer, or the customer. *I've found
that customers prefer products that are 5 to 10 times faster, instead
of products that were easy for the developer.

And I disagree that Flaming Thunder requires more brain-cycles.
Because it's based on leveraging existing English and math fluency
(which was one of the original goals of Python, was it not?), I think
that Flaming Thunder requires fewer brain-cycles because fewer brains
cells have to be devoted to memorizing language peculiarities.

You keep mentioning that the original goals of Python is to "make it
English-like", well, I can say, you are wrong. The goals of Python is
to make a usable language that have a clean and clutter-free syntax,
which is clearly the inverse of FT's goal. To say, Python's goal is to
make simple syntax that is easy to learn, learning process is
something which can't be avoided unless you've created a natural
language programming language.

As I see it, FT aimed to be a natural language programming language,
well, unless you can parse script like this;

Write down "Hello World" to the file in "C:\test.txt" then print the
output to the printer, if no printer can be found, then tell the user
"Cannot Find Printer" then write a log file that printing has failed.
Unless a = b, then make c equal to 4, or raise 5 to the power of 8 and
assign that to c when a is also equal to d. If the page has been
printed, then print a + b + c + d to the screen and wait for user
input up to 8 seconds before quitting.

Anything less than that, you've failed to create natural language
parser. The current state of FT, as I see it, is no more smarter or
intelligible or readable than Python, albeit with much more
unnecessary verbosity, which in Python, is frowned upon. Anything
between the current FT and a real natural language parser is a verbose
Perl ("there is more than one way to do it").

Let alone it is
very much a question of view-point if two different looping constructs or
keywords are more awkward than one general looping-concept with only one
keyword. It's a matter of taste.

Perhaps. *But if elementary school students can easily understand why
one programming language gives the answer 100 (Flaming Thunder):

* Write 10^2.

but can't understand why another programming language gives the answer
8 (Python):

* Print 10^2

then I think the comparison moves beyond a matter of taste into the
realm of measurable ease-of-use.

Lol, that only means you haven't read the documentation of the
language. You can't write program without understanding the language,
which usually means reading the documentation, even in FT. Except in a
real natural language programming language, which you can write
anything and the compiler would (hopefully, as natural language has
many ambiguity) understand whatever you've written.

(snip)