Inquisitive computing

[bearophileHUGS]

Python as a language almost fit for Inquisitive computing:

http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...8/5/calculemus

(I think Python is one of the best ones for such purpose).

Bye,
bearophile

[David C. Ullrich]

In article
<41**********************************@l42g2000hsc. googlegroups.com>,
be************@lycos.com wrote:

Python as a language almost fit for Inquisitive computing:

Heh - language problem. At first I read "almost fit for" as
"almost satisfactory for". Looking at the link and your next
comment I think you meant "is almost a perfect fit for".

Yes, I've done a lot of "inquisitive computing" in Python -
it's excellent for that sort of thing.

http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...8/5/calculemus

(I think Python is one of the best ones for such purpose).

If you look at the end of the article you see the author
agrees (I don't quite follow his complaint about not feeling
at home with the interactive mode, but it's funny to read about
how he uses Lisp but realizes he's not going to talk people
into that...)

Bye,
bearophile

--
David C. Ullrich

[bearophileHUGS]

David C. Ullrich:

If you look at the end of the article you see the author
agrees (I don't quite follow his complaint about not feeling
at home with the interactive mode, but it's funny to read about
how he uses Lisp but realizes he's not going to talk people
into that...)

That well know author thinks Python is almost fit, but not quite (no
rationals, he seems to not like imports, and he wants optional types,
and native compilation performance too, etc), and I think he likes
Scheme a lot (not right CLisp). You may want to take a look at the
article to see if I am right.

Bye,
bearophile

[castironpi]

On Aug 13, 4:29*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

David C. Ullrich:

If you look at the end of the article you see the author
agrees (I don't quite follow his complaint about not feeling
at home with the interactive mode, but it's funny to read about
how he uses Lisp but realizes he's not going to talk people
into that...)

That well know author thinks Python is almost fit, but not quite (no
rationals, he seems to not like imports, and he wants optional types,
and native compilation performance too, etc), and I think he likes
Scheme a lot (not right CLisp). You may want to take a look at the
article to see if I am right.

Bye,
bearophile

He didn't mention a debugger, which Python does have. But in
mentioning Python he didn't distinguish between the live interpreter
console and executing a script. Also, the idea of language-
independent editor isn't explored; they're too closely coupled.
(Except maybe Bloodshed Dev, which has a Tools menu, you can customize
to say \python\python %curfile%.)