Python and Flaming Thunder

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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]

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.

 

[castironpi]

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.






- Show quoted text -

How come no one said lightning?

 

[castironpi]

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.






- Show quoted text -

What is about $0?

 

[castironpi]

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.






- Show quoted text -

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

 

[castironpi]

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.

- 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.

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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.

5-10 times faster for what kind of code? I don't see anything that resembles
OO features of python, let alone more advanced concepts like
meta-programming, higher-order functions and such. Which save tremendous
amounts of time coding. If FT grows these and *still* is 5-10 times faster,
I'll salut you.

And what is really expensive is brain-cycles, not cpu-cycles. Which above
described features save.

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.

Oh *please*! Try getting nearly as feature & library complete as python is
today - and *then* I'll point to all the akwardness of FT. 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.

Diez

 

[Dan Upton]

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...

 

[Dave Parker]

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.

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.

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.

 

[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_(programming_language)#Syntax_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.

 

[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.

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]

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.

Just to support this statement: PHP runs an order of magnitude slower than
python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there
run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers?

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.

 

[Andrii V. Mishkovskyi]

You sound like a commercial. Is this your way of attracting costumers of FT?

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.


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.

I see your assembly language libraries and raise you C language libraries.
Python libraries have the speed of pure C language libraries. And
while programs and libraries written in assembly may be twice as fast
as programs and libraries written in C, they're real hell to maintain.
But that doesn't stop you from telling us, that:

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, we'll see. But, IMHO, this is highly unlikely.

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.

Yeah, right, Python is sooooo slow. Show us some sites and programs
that were written in FT.

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.

If I'm customer, than why should I care about FT?
If I'm a programmer, I'd better care about brain-cycles.

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.

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".

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.

'^' is a bitwise XOR. Python uses "x**y" for raising x to power of y.
What's your point here?

 

[Dave Parker]

Just to support this statement: PHP runs an order of magnitude slower than

python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there
run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers?

The websites owners might not be unhappy, but lots of customers
complain about slow websites, so if the market is competitive then
eventually the PHP fad will die out.

For example, Slashdot recently interviewed a successful website in a
competitive market -- online newspapers -- and found that to enhance
customer happiness the New York Times uses hand-coded HTML.

"He was asked how the Web site looks so consistently nice and polished
no matter which browser or resolution is used to access it. His answer
begins: 'It's our preference to use a text editor, like HomeSite,
TextPad or TextMate, to "hand code" everything, rather than to use a
wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) HTML and CSS authoring program,
like Dreamweaver. We just find it yields better and faster results.'"
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/30/009245&from=rss

"Faster" wins in a competitive market, so if a programming language
can't deliver "faster", it is a fad that will die out.

 

[hdante]

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.

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.

 

[Diez B. Roggisch]

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