Guido at Google

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

Actually that looks like it's based on the approximation
of 25.4 mm/inch, whereas I believe the legally defined US conversion
is 39.3700 inches/meter. They're close. British is 39.3701 for some reason.
At least according to my dusty 37th Edition Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (c) 1955.
Maybe things have changed since then ;-)

49.212598425196852

Appears to be the google number

But the official conversion

25.400050800101603

My HP48SX converts

1m -> 39.3700787402in

for an exact 25.4mm/in

However, it also has a special entry for "ftUS" which differs from
"ft" (1ftUS -> 1.000002ft)

I believe my assorted orbital mechanics text books have appendices
that specify the conversion relies upon the exact value (25.4), hence
deprecates the "US" inch.
--

 

[Anand]

This is very good news. I wish Guido all the best!

I wonder if this has got to do something with Microsoft developing
IronPython. Incidentellay it is reaching a 1.0 release pretty soon.
Perhaps Google has some cards up their sleeve. What other best way to
counter this than to hire the big fish himself ?

-Anand

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Yeah... we recognize that we could certainly open-source more of our
software. While we've released some stuff
(code.google.com/projects.html), there is a LOT more that we want to
http://code.google.com/projects.html

do. Getting engineers' 20% time to do that has been difficult.
Thankfully, we know how to fix that and got the okay/headcount to make
it happen. (IOW, it isn't a lack of desire, but making it happen)

When a company like Google open's sources, this means simply nothing
more than:

- the software is not critical to their business (e.g. core-software)
- the internal resources cannot ensure further development

See IBM, SUN and others, which have done the same thing.

But even if we haven't been able to open-source as much code as we'd
like, we *have* been trying to be very supportive of the community.
Between the Summer of Code and direct cash contributions, we've
provided a LOT of support to a large number of open source
organizations.

I hope that you invest some time to _organize_ the Open Source Projects.

Starting with Python and it's project-structure (e.g. build-process) and
documentation (e.g. ensuring standard-terminology is kept, like "class")

e.g.: where can I find an UML diagramm of the Python Object Model?

Even Ruby has one:

http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png

-

And we have a couple other ideas on how to help the open source
community. We're working on it!

The open-source-community can help Google, too!

E.g.: Google needs an public Issue-Tracking-System.

I needed around 30 emails and 2 months until google-groups-support
removed a bug which broke(!) existent links to google archives. (cannot
find the topic. Simply search your support-archives to see the desaster).

With publicity, the team would have removed the bug within one week.

Cheers,
-g

And finally:

If Mr. van Rossum is now at Google, and Python is essentially a Mr. van
Rossum based product, then most possibly the evolution-speed of Python
will decrease even more (Google will implement things needed by Google -
van Rossum will follow, so simple).

I mean, when will this language finally become a _really_ fully
Object-Oriented one, with a clean reflective Meta-Model?

Thus I can see Python pass this this _simple_ evaluation (which it does
not pass in its current implementation):

http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/python.html

-

I have around one year to await.

Will see.

..

 

[bonono]

This is very good news. I wish Guido all the best!

I wonder if this has got to do something with Microsoft developing
IronPython. Incidentellay it is reaching a 1.0 release pretty soon.
Perhaps Google has some cards up their sleeve. What other best way to
counter this than to hire the big fish himself ?

I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
of either organisations of such size ?

 

[Gary Herron]

Greg Stein wrote:



When a company like Google open's sources, this means simply nothing
more than:

- the software is not critical to their business (e.g. core-software)
- the internal resources cannot ensure further development

See IBM, SUN and others, which have done the same thing.




I hope that you invest some time to _organize_ the Open Source Projects.

Starting with Python and it's project-structure (e.g. build-process) and
documentation (e.g. ensuring standard-terminology is kept, like "class")

e.g.: where can I find an UML diagramm of the Python Object Model?

Even Ruby has one:

http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png

-




The open-source-community can help Google, too!

E.g.: Google needs an public Issue-Tracking-System.

I needed around 30 emails and 2 months until google-groups-support
removed a bug which broke(!) existent links to google archives. (cannot
find the topic. Simply search your support-archives to see the desaster).

With publicity, the team would have removed the bug within one week.




And finally:

If Mr. van Rossum is now at Google, and Python is essentially a Mr. van
Rossum based product, then most possibly the evolution-speed of Python
will decrease even more (Google will implement things needed by Google -
van Rossum will follow, so simple).

I mean, when will this language finally become a _really_ fully
Object-Oriented one, with a clean reflective Meta-Model?

Thus I can see Python pass this this _simple_ evaluation (which it does
not pass in its current implementation):

http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/python.html

-

I have around one year to await.

You don't appear to understand Open Source very well.

Python is the way it is because we, the community, *like* it that way.
It evolves in directions that we (all) decide it is to evolve. Guido is
our leader in this because we trust him and *choose* to follow his lead.
If you want something changed you don't wait and you don't whine, you
join the community with a reasoned argument for why your idea would make
it a better language in *our* eyes.

So how about it... What's your complaint, what's your solution, and why
should we listen?

Gary Herron

 

[Alex Martelli]

I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
of either organisations of such size ?

Interesting question. I would expect, without any inside knowledge,
that Java, for example, is pretty high "in the priority of an
organization" (guess which one?) whose size (number of employees) is, I
believe, quite a bit larger than Google's. Microsoft used to have a
"particular programming language" (Visual Basic) in quite a strategic
role in their array of products, and although you'd now have to consider
a small set instead (including C#) it seems to me they still do. As for
Google, well, I believe there is exactly one (1) person you'll find
identified on the web as both a "Google Fellow" AND a Google
vice-president, and his page from when he was a professor at UCSB
(before he joined Google) is still on the web, too: guess what field his
research was in...? But I guess this is about programming languages in
general, rather than "a particular one" (and indeed, neither MS, nor
Google, nor the other organization above mentioned, have ever been
"single-programming-language" cultures [net of the very early times when
Basic was MS's only product, of course;-)]...).


Alex

 

[bonono]

I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
of either organisations of such size ?

Interesting question. I would expect, without any inside knowledge,
that Java, for example, is pretty high "in the priority of an
organization" (guess which one?) whose size (number of employees) is, I
believe, quite a bit larger than Google's. Microsoft used to have a
"particular programming language" (Visual Basic) in quite a strategic
role in their array of products, and although you'd now have to consider
a small set instead (including C#) it seems to me they still do. As for
Google, well, I believe there is exactly one (1) person you'll find
identified on the web as both a "Google Fellow" AND a Google
vice-president, and his page from when he was a professor at UCSB
(before he joined Google) is still on the web, too: guess what field his
research was in...? But I guess this is about programming languages in
general, rather than "a particular one" (and indeed, neither MS, nor
Google, nor the other organization above mentioned, have ever been
"single-programming-language" cultures [net of the very early times when
Basic was MS's only product, of course;-)]...).

The question was specifically to the previous question it is responsed
to and if its context or meaning have been read otherwise(intended or
not intended), there isn't much I can do.

 

[bonono]

You don't appear to understand Open Source very well.

Python is the way it is because we, the community, *like* it that way.
It evolves in directions that we (all) decide it is to evolve. Guido is
our leader in this because we trust him and *choose* to follow his lead.
If you want something changed you don't wait and you don't whine, you
join the community with a reasoned argument for why your idea would make
it a better language in *our* eyes.

So how about it... What's your complaint, what's your solution, and why
should we listen?

Well, this may be the CPython way of open source but I don't know if
that is "Open source" in general. Another way is that if someone(or
group) don't like the current state of a project, they fork. I don't
know if that is possible in the context of python, and programming
language in general. Can it still be called python ?

I am not saying that it is a better way(my guess is not) but just that
the first sentence seems to be overly generalized.

 

[Alex Martelli]

I wonder if this has got to do something with Microsoft developing
IronPython. Incidentellay it is reaching a 1.0 release pretty soon.
Perhaps Google has some cards up their sleeve. What other best way to
counter this than to hire the big fish himself ? ...
I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
of either organisations of such size ?

...
Interesting question. I would expect, without any inside knowledge, ...
"single-programming-language" cultures [net of the very early times when
Basic was MS's only product, of course;-)]...).

The question was specifically to the previous question it is responsed
to and if its context or meaning have been read otherwise(intended or
not intended), there isn't much I can do.

The funny idea that Google would hire Guido to "counter" Microsoft's
hiring of Jim Hugunin 1+ year ago didn't particularly need debunking,
but you chose to comment on it with a "question" which I thought was
worth answering, since you chose to phrase it so very generally, and
since it appeared to be intended as a "rhetorical question" hinting at
what I consider a wrong idea in the general case. Far from "there not
being much you can do", if you're interested in avoiding possible
misunderstandings you can easily choose to express yourself more
precisely and specifically, rather than vaguely and generically...


Alex

 

[Bengt Richter]

Bengt Richter wrote:
[roughly "an inch is not exactly 25.4mm"]

At least according to my dusty 37th Edition Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (c) 1955.
Maybe things have changed since then ;-)

Wikipedia concurs with Jim, though it says the official change dates
from 1958.

Better throw that old book out, as it's also likely to be missing any
reference to useful elements such as Lawrencium (1961), and Hassium
(1984), not to mention Ununnilium, Ununumium and Ununbium (94, 94, 96
respectively) or the most recently discovered element, which the PSU
tried to supp

I had been using 25.4mm/inch myself, but decided to look it up, and
found that I had been using the "wrong" value -- now actually proving
to be right after all, after the definition change of 1958(1959?).

Google found an NIST page:

http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenB.html

Where it says:
"""
B.6 U.S. survey foot and mile

The U. S. Metric Law of 1866 gave the relationship 1 m = 39.37 in (in is
the unit symbol for the inch). From 1893 until 1959, the yard was defined
as being exactly equal to (3600/3937) m, and thus the foot was defined as
being exactly equal to (1200/3937) m.

In 1959 the definition of the yard was changed to bring the U.S. yard and
the yard used in other countries into agreement. Since then the yard has
been defined as exactly equal to 0.9144 m, and thus the foot has been
defined as exactly equal to 0.3048 m. At the same time it was decided that
any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the United
States would continue to bear the relationship as defined in 1893, namely,
1 ft = (1200/ 3937) m (ft is the unit symbol for the foot). The name of
this foot is "U.S. survey foot," while the name of the new foot defined in
1959 is "international foot." The two are related to each other through
the expression 1 international foot = 0.999 998 U.S. survey foot exactly.

In Sec. B.8 and Sec. B.9, the factors given are based on the international
foot unless otherwise indicated. Users of this /Guide/ may also find
the following summary of exact relationships helpful, where for
convenience the symbols /ft/ and /mi,/ that is, ft and mi in
italic type, indicate that it is the /U.S. survey foot/ or /U.S.
survey mile/ that is meant rather than the international foot (ft) or
international mile (mi), and where rd is the unit symbol for the rod and
fur is the unit symbol for the furlong.

1 /ft/ = (1200/3937) m
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 ft = 0.999 998 /ft/
1 rd, pole, or perch = 16 1/2 /ft/

40 rd = 1 fur = 660 /ft/
8 fur = 1 U.S. survey mile (also called "statute mile") = 1 /mi/ = 5280 /ft/
1 fathom = 6 /ft/
1 international mile = 1 mi = 5280 ft
272 1/4 /ft/**2 = 1 rd**2

160 rd**2 = 1 acre = 43 560ft**2
640 acre = 1 /mi/**2
"""
(I changed italics to be indicated by /italic/ slashes, and superscript by **,
as well as changing special characters for a quarter and half to 1/4 and 1/2.
Hope I didn't typo ;-)

Anyway, 25.4 mm/inch it is. Nice to revert to that, after an unsettling diversion ;-)
NIST ought to have it right, right? Or is there an intelligent design version now? ;-/

Regards,
Bengt Richter

 

[bonono]

I wonder if this has got to do something with Microsoft developing
IronPython. Incidentellay it is reaching a 1.0 release pretty soon.
Perhaps Google has some cards up their sleeve. What other best way to
counter this than to hire the big fish himself ? ...
I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
of either organisations of such size ? ...
Interesting question. I would expect, without any inside knowledge, ...
"single-programming-language" cultures [net of the very early times when
Basic was MS's only product, of course;-)]...).

The question was specifically to the previous question it is responsed
to and if its context or meaning have been read otherwise(intended or
not intended), there isn't much I can do.

The funny idea that Google would hire Guido to "counter" Microsoft's
hiring of Jim Hugunin 1+ year ago didn't particularly need debunking,
but you chose to comment on it with a "question" which I thought was
worth answering, since you chose to phrase it so very generally, and
since it appeared to be intended as a "rhetorical question" hinting at
what I consider a wrong idea in the general case. Far from "there not
being much you can do", if you're interested in avoiding possible
misunderstandings you can easily choose to express yourself more
precisely and specifically, rather than vaguely and generically...

As I said, I cannot do anything in how you want to intepret that and
how you can read it as "rhetorical question"(could be just that it is
from me), there really is nothing I can do other changing the mail name
which I am intended to.

What is your meaning of "wrong idea in the general case" ?

 

[Alex Martelli]

...
from me), there really is nothing I can do other changing the mail name
which I am intended to.

Sorry, can't parse this (I doubt it's English).

What is your meaning of "wrong idea in the general case" ?

In the general case, it's pretty general;-). In the specific case of
your "question" above quoted (interpreting the mis-spelled words and
grammatical errors to the best of my modest ability), reading it as
rhetorical means it's in fact intended as a statement (that a particular
programming language cannot have high priority for organizations of size
similar to MS's and Google's), and such a statement is incorrect (as I
tried showing with several examples displaying "particular programming
languages" having high strategical priorities for organizations with
many thousands of employees, including one with more personnel [larger
size] than Google's).

An example of rhetorical question:
"Do you really think that a specific technology [including a software
one, such as a programming language] cannot have, in certain cases,
*extremely high* strategic priority for organizations with thousands of
employees?"

In this example, the question is phrased to hint at how silly such an
opinion would be, and therefore imply that you can't really think that
(and must have ulterior motives for so suggesting, etc etc). Rhetorical
questions are a perfectly legitimate style of writing (although, like
all stylistic embellishments, they can be overused, and can be made much
less effective if murkily or fuzzily phrased), of course.


Alex

 

[Steve Holden]

Ha! I'm still trying to figure out who let me in. Everyone has some
chance.
Of course, I'm going on vacation next week and there was talk
about a one-way ticket to Mexico.

The real question is will they let me *back* in?

I would be careful coming back across the border. I heard that the PSU

 

[EP]

Anand wrote:


I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
of either organisations of such size ?

I do not know how badly Google needs a particular programming language
Python, but in that I believe the IT world at large could really use
Python, more Python, both as it exists and as it might evolve to be, I
would like to mention that Python, the language, could really use a high
profile industry champion.

Java => Sun
..Net => Microsoft
C# => Microsoft
Linux => too many big name IT companies to mention
Python => ________ ?


These kind of alliances may not improve the bytecode, but they sure
influence what programmers get to use day in and day out.

Congrats, Guido. Thanks for Python and may your future at Google be bright.


EP

 

[bonono]

In the general case, it's pretty general;-). In the specific case of
your "question" above quoted (interpreting the mis-spelled words and
grammatical errors to the best of my modest ability), reading it as
rhetorical means it's in fact intended as a statement (that a particular
programming language cannot have high priority for organizations of size
similar to MS's and Google's), and such a statement is incorrect (as I
tried showing with several examples displaying "particular programming
languages" having high strategical priorities for organizations with
many thousands of employees, including one with more personnel [larger
size] than Google's).

So exactly how high is python in Google's priority list ? Or in other
words, if python is in a stand still as it is now, what would be the
impact to Google ? As an outsider, I can only base on public info, like
a press release mentioning Guido has been hired.

An example of rhetorical question:
"Do you really think that a specific technology [including a software
one, such as a programming language] cannot have, in certain cases,
*extremely high* strategic priority for organizations with thousands of
employees?"

In this example, the question is phrased to hint at how silly such an
opinion would be, and therefore imply that you can't really think that
(and must have ulterior motives for so suggesting, etc etc). Rhetorical
questions are a perfectly legitimate style of writing (although, like
all stylistic embellishments, they can be overused, and can be made much
less effective if murkily or fuzzily phrased), of course.

Surprisingly, I don't see this as an rhetorical question at all. It is
quite netural to me as a "I don't agree with you" without indication of
silliness, just a style of writing.

 

[Ray]

Congrats, Guido. Thanks for Python and may your future at Google be bright.

Congrats to BDFL too--may the future of his and his creation be bright
indeed!

Ray

 

[Fuzzyman]

Yeah... we recognize that we could certainly open-source more of our
software. While we've released some stuff
(code.google.com/projects.html), there is a LOT more that we want to
do. Getting engineers' 20% time to do that has been difficult.
Thankfully, we know how to fix that and got the okay/headcount to make
it happen. (IOW, it isn't a lack of desire, but making it happen)

But even if we haven't been able to open-source as much code as we'd
like, we *have* been trying to be very supportive of the community.
Between the Summer of Code and direct cash contributions, we've
provided a LOT of support to a large number of open source
organizations.

And we have a couple other ideas on how to help the open source
community. We're working on it!

I salute your contribution to the world of open source in general.

I'm hopeful that the employing Guido will lead to a more tangible bias
in favour of Python ;-)

All the best,

Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml

 

[Peter Hansen]

So exactly how high is python in Google's priority list ? Or in other
words, if python is in a stand still as it is now, what would be the
impact to Google ?

Since when is Python in a standstill?

By all accounts I've seen, and personal observation over the last five
years, it's use is growing rapidly, and the language itself (including
in that word the libraries, tools, etc.) is continuing to evolve and
improve.

-Peter

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

Well, this may be the CPython way of open source but I don't know if
that is "Open source" in general. Another way is that if someone(or
group) don't like the current state of a project, they fork. I don't
know if that is possible in the context of python, and programming
language in general. Can it still be called python ?

.
.
.
While I don't understand the question, it might be pertinent to
observe that, among open-source development projects, Python is
unusual for the *large* number of "forks" or alternative imple-
mentations it has supported through the years <URL:
http://phaseit.net/claird/comp.lang.python/python_varieties.html >.

 

[bonono]

.
.
.
.
.
.
While I don't understand the question, it might be pertinent to
observe that, among open-source development projects, Python is
unusual for the *large* number of "forks" or alternative imple-
mentations it has supported through the years <URL:
http://phaseit.net/claird/comp.lang.python/python_varieties.html >.

The question is, can anyone just fork a new one using the python name,
as part of the project, without the permission from the foundation ?
Say for example, anyone want to implement java needs permission from
Sun(or is it javasoft), if I rememeber correctly. Therefore, the only
way to make change to java the language is to convince Sun, very
similar to the model of Python. But many open source project is not
using this model.