new forum -- homework help/chit chat/easy communication

Discussion in 'Python' started by csheppard91@gmail.com, Oct 8, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
    there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
    all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
    a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
    communication is much easier, safer, and faster.
     
    , Oct 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
    > there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
    > all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
    > a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
    > communication is much easier, safer, and faster.
    >


    Easier than what? Having to look into each forum to see if something is
    new? That's easier?
    Safer than what? Using a web browser? That's safe?
    Faster? That page loads 10 posts in the same speed I get 700 posts with
    usenet.

    Don't think so matey.

    Nice try though.

    --
    Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
    http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
    mailto:
    PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=, Oct 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

    > Don't think so matey.


    oh, come on. a site run by some random guy in North Carolina has to be
    safer, faster and more reliable than a distributed communication system that
    has been around since that guy was born...

    </F>
     
    Fredrik Lundh, Oct 8, 2005
    #3
  4. On Saturday 08 October 2005 21:15, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
    > > there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
    > > all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
    > > a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
    > > communication is much easier, safer, and faster.

    >
    > Easier than what? Having to look into each forum to see if something is
    > new? That's easier?
    > Safer than what? Using a web browser? That's safe?
    > Faster? That page loads 10 posts in the same speed I get 700 posts with
    > usenet.


    Besides that, it's cheap advertising. Would it have been harder to post the
    direct forum link than to link to his company's website?
     
    Michael Goettsche, Oct 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Michael Goettsche wrote:

    > Besides that, it's cheap advertising. Would it have been harder to post the
    > direct forum link than to link to his company's website?


    company?

    </F>
     
    Fredrik Lundh, Oct 8, 2005
    #5
  6. On 2005-10-08, <> wrote:

    > I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
    > there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
    > all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
    > a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
    > communication is much easier, safer, and faster.


    I disagree 100% with that last assertion. Usenet is much,
    much, easier, safer and faster.

    --
    Grant Edwards grante Yow! BARRY... That was
    at the most HEART-WARMING
    visi.com rendition of "I DID IT
    MYWAY" I've ever heard!!
     
    Grant Edwards, Oct 8, 2005
    #6
  7. Fredrik Lundh wrote:
    > Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Don't think so matey.

    >
    >
    > oh, come on. a site run by some random guy in North Carolina has to be
    > safer, faster and more reliable than a distributed communication system that
    > has been around since that guy was born...


    Yes, of course, my mistake, it's rather obvious now that you point it out.

    --
    Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
    http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
    mailto:
    PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=, Oct 8, 2005
    #7
  8. Brandon K Guest

    Hrm...i find it demeaning to relegate Python to a scripting language
    while Visual Basic is in the "software development" section. Python so
    outdoes VB in every way shape and form.


    > I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
    > there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
    > all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
    > a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
    > communication is much easier, safer, and faster.
    >



    ----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
    Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms!
    ----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----
     
    Brandon K, Oct 8, 2005
    #8
  9. Brandon K Guest

    wrote:
    > I've launched a new forum not too long ago, and I invite you all to go
    > there: www.wizardsolutionsusa.com (click on the forum link). We offer
    > all kinds of help, and for those of you who just like to talk, there's
    > a chit chat section just for you...Just remember that forum
    > communication is much easier, safer, and faster.
    >


    [.section Blurb]

    About me:
    My name is James (Cantley) Sheppard. I am a North Carolina resident, at
    the age of 16. I have been programming since the age of 12, and enjoy it
    as lifes[sic] greatest passion. In the future, I would love to become
    the leading Software Engineer at a fairly large company, and maybe
    someday own my own business. As of right now, I am currently in high
    school and planning on going to a four year college somewhere around the
    country. Well, that is my life story, and about all I got to say!


    [.section Commentary]

    Hrm, obviously hasn't had enough programming experience in 4 years to
    quite know what he's talking about. Before making random "assertions"
    James, you might want to take into account the community you're talking
    to. I don't know about you guys, but I've had enough teen start up
    webpages. They clog the web. No offense of course to the younger
    readers, its just...it's like E/N sites...junk most of the time.


    ----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
    Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms!
    ----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----
     
    Brandon K, Oct 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Brandon K wrote:
    > Hrm...i find it demeaning to relegate Python to a scripting language
    > while Visual Basic is in the "software development" section. Python so
    > outdoes VB in every way shape and form.
    >

    <snip>

    In that respect I would very much like to see a definition of "scripting
    language" as well :)

    In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
    and a "programming language".

    --
    Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
    http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
    mailto:
    PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=, Oct 8, 2005
    #10
  11. Brandon K Guest


    > In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
    > and a "programming language".
    >


    Good point.


    ----== Posted via Newsgroups.com - Usenet Access to over 100,000 Newsgroups ==----
    Get Anonymous, Uncensored, Access to West and East Coast Server Farms!
    ----== Highest Retention and Completion Rates! HTTP://WWW.NEWSGROUPS.COM ==----
     
    Brandon K, Oct 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Donn Cave Guest

    Quoth Lasse_Vgsther_Karlsen <>:
    | Brandon K wrote:
    |> Hrm...i find it demeaning to relegate Python to a scripting language
    |> while Visual Basic is in the "software development" section. Python so
    |> outdoes VB in every way shape and form.

    | <snip>
    |
    | In that respect I would very much like to see a definition of "scripting
    | language" as well :)
    |
    | In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
    | and a "programming language".

    I oculd come up with a definition, but I can't come up with _the_
    definition. The word is used in such broad and vague ways that to
    use it is practically a sign of sloppy thinking.

    Donn Cave,
     
    Donn Cave, Oct 9, 2005
    #12
  13. Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

    > In other words, what is the difference between a "scripting language"
    > and a "programming language".


    here's one useful way to look at things:

    "Unlike mainstream component programming, scripts usually
    do not introduce new components but simply "wire" existing
    ones. Scripts can be seen as introducing behavior but no
    new state. /.../ Of course, there is nothing to stop a
    "scripting" language from introducing persistent state -- it
    then simply turns into a normal programming language."

    -- Clemens Szyperski, in "Component Software":

    </F>
     
    Fredrik Lundh, Oct 9, 2005
    #13
  14. Fredrik Lundh wrote:
    <snip>
    > "Unlike mainstream component programming, scripts usually
    > do not introduce new components but simply "wire" existing
    > ones. Scripts can be seen as introducing behavior but no
    > new state. /.../ Of course, there is nothing to stop a
    > "scripting" language from introducing persistent state -- it
    > then simply turns into a normal programming language."
    >
    > -- Clemens Szyperski, in "Component Software":

    <snip>

    That description seems to describe whatever is written more than
    whatever it is written in, or in other words, it describes the
    difference between a script and a program, not between a scripting
    language and a programming language.

    I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
    within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
    without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
    minor functions and things to that program.

    Nowadays a lot of the scripting languages have turned programming
    languages so I think the difference is small.

    --
    Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
    http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
    mailto:
    PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lasse_V=E5gs=E6ther_Karlsen?=, Oct 9, 2005
    #14
  15. Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

    > <snip>
    > > "Unlike mainstream component programming, scripts usually
    > > do not introduce new components but simply "wire" existing
    > > ones. Scripts can be seen as introducing behavior but no
    > > new state. /.../ Of course, there is nothing to stop a
    > > "scripting" language from introducing persistent state -- it
    > > then simply turns into a normal programming language."
    > >
    > > -- Clemens Szyperski, in "Component Software":

    > <snip>
    >
    > That description seems to describe whatever is written more than
    > whatever it is written in, or in other words, it describes the
    > difference between a script and a program, not between a scripting
    > language and a programming language.


    well, yes and no. it basically implies that if a language doesn't have
    the internal mechanisms required to implement persistent storage on
    its own, it's a scripting language. examples are shell languages, the
    Windows BAT language, javascript running in certain environments,
    and the myriad of application-specific "command languages" that were
    popular in the "old days".

    > Nowadays a lot of the scripting languages have turned programming
    > languages so I think the difference is small.


    I think the trend is that when people are faced with a "scripting problem"
    (e.g. when they need "command languages" or other kinds of basic pro-
    grammability), it's no longer fashionable to invent yet another language.
    integrating an existing runtime is a lot easier.

    Tcl is an early example of a something that started as a "reusable
    command language" and turned into a "real programming language"
    along the way:

    http://www.tcl.tk/advocacy/tclHistory.html

    </F>
     
    Fredrik Lundh, Oct 9, 2005
    #15
  16. Mike Meyer Guest

    Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen <> writes:

    > Fredrik Lundh wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> "Unlike mainstream component programming, scripts usually
    >> do not introduce new components but simply "wire" existing
    >> ones. Scripts can be seen as introducing behavior but no
    >> new state. /.../ Of course, there is nothing to stop a
    >> "scripting" language from introducing persistent state -- it
    >> then simply turns into a normal programming language."
    >> -- Clemens Szyperski, in "Component Software":

    > <snip>
    >
    > That description seems to describe whatever is written more than
    > whatever it is written in, or in other words, it describes the
    > difference between a script and a program, not between a scripting
    > language and a programming language.


    It also pretty solidly capture what a shell script does.

    > I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
    > within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
    > without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
    > minor functions and things to that program.


    That's certainly one kind of scripting language. But I don't think
    it's ever been the only kind - shells have always been stand-alone
    applications. What they have in common with your definition is that
    both types of languages are used to capture user actions for later
    repetition. And that's what makes a scripting language: it's a
    language in which one writes "scripts" that describe actions -
    normally taken by a user - so that a series of them can be performed
    automatically.

    For my take on the ontology of scripting languages, see <URL:
    http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/scripting/what.html >.

    <mike
    --
    Mike Meyer <> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
    Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
     
    Mike Meyer, Oct 9, 2005
    #16
  17. Paul Rubin Guest

    "Fredrik Lundh" <> writes:
    > Tcl is an early example of a something that started as a "reusable
    > command language" and turned into a "real programming language"
    > along the way:


    Yes, that's why tcl is such an awful language. And it happens all the
    time. It's better to just start with a powerful language, e.g.,
    Python, Guile, etc. From the Guile blurb:
    http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html#whatisit


    The true cost of doing it yourself
    ==================================

    When you get to the point in your project where you need a scripting
    language or a configuration file format and reader, the normal course
    of things is to say ``I'll just do something clean and simple.'' This
    is a good decision. Adding a full programming language is just a
    distraction from your project. But simple languages don't seem capable
    of staying simple. For example, early releases of PHP, a language for
    generating web pages dynamically, enjoyed its minute memory footprint
    and simplicity. However over time PHP has grown, with the latest
    releases giving PHP an object system and other features that have
    grown it to a much larger size. Compare Tcl from its 1988 origins with
    the modern, sizable language. Broadly, the same progression has
    occurred with Perl.
    ....
    Guile has the fundamentals you need; you simply specialize it for your
    application. It has arrays and lists; modules; objects; and
    first-class functions. It has garbage collection --- which makes using
    Guile especially simple. Using Guile, your application has a
    full-featured scripting language right from the beginning, so you can
    focus your manpower on the novel and attention-getting parts of your
    application.
     
    Paul Rubin, Oct 9, 2005
    #17
  18. Donn Cave Guest

    Quoth Mike Meyer <>:
    | Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen <> writes:
    ....
    |> I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
    |> within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
    |> without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
    |> minor functions and things to that program.
    |
    | That's certainly one kind of scripting language. But I don't think
    | it's ever been the only kind - shells have always been stand-alone
    | applications. What they have in common with your definition is that
    | both types of languages are used to capture user actions for later
    | repetition. And that's what makes a scripting language: it's a
    | language in which one writes "scripts" that describe actions -
    | normally taken by a user - so that a series of them can be performed
    | automatically.

    I don't think the shell is any exception - I think it's reasonable to
    see it as a control+UI language embedded in the UNIX operating system.
    It wouldn't really be a very useful stand-alone application on a computer
    platform without the same basic properties.

    Donn Cave,
     
    Donn Cave, Oct 9, 2005
    #18
  19. On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:34:31 +0200, Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
    <> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:

    >
    > I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived
    > within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves
    > without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add
    > minor functions and things to that program.
    >

    Super BAT files (to use archaic MS-DOS terms)... A collection of,
    essentially, individual shell commands with minimal "if" type logic and
    parameter substitution (you can expand that to things like editor
    scripting -- still mostly just a bunch of the same commands one would
    type at a keyboard, just automated).

    Python has never struck me as a "scripting" language by itself.
    REXX, OTOH, still has a "scripting" feel (though not as much as the
    Amiga version, ARexx) since, by default, any statement that does not
    parse as a REXX statement is automatically passed to the currently
    defined command shell for execution -- in effect, rather than a BAT file
    being command shell statements with an extention of script-language
    logic, REXX is a language with implicit command shell capability.
    Assisted by the fact that the command shell can be changed mid-stream,
    so any application that is REXX-aware (on the Amiga, that was nearly
    everything as the mechanism was built on top of the native IPC system)
    could be scripted -- and "glued" to another... Set the command shell to
    a database engine, execute database queries, assign the result to a
    local variable, switch command shell to word processor, issue commands
    to format the database data into word processor.

    REXX also had the ability to register function libraries -- so if
    such were defined for the applications, one could access the
    applications without passing through the command shell method. This
    latter method would be closest to the M$ COM model.
    --
    > ============================================================== <
    > | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
    > | Bestiaria Support Staff <
    > ============================================================== <
    > Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/> <
    > Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/> <
     
    Dennis Lee Bieber, Oct 9, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    415
    Roedy Green
    Oct 10, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,207
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    347
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    126
Loading...

Share This Page