The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come!

S

Steven D'Aprano

rantingrick said:
Turned my otherwise beautiful code into an Orwellian nightmare.

Your code was spying on you, having your friends and family disappear during
the night to be tortured, and having history re-written so that there was
no longer any evidence that they ever existed?

You have my sympathy.
 
D

Dennis Lee Bieber

Your code was spying on you, having your friends and family disappear during
the night to be tortured, and having history re-written so that there was
no longer any evidence that they ever existed?

You have my sympathy.

<snicker>

Well... "1984" at least is feasible/understandable... I fear to
think what influence "Animal Farm" would have on the response... (I
recall reading "1984", but have only encountered parts of "Animal Farm")

OTOH... Code turning into a Lovecraftian nightmare is another level
of unease...
 
A

alex23

rantingrick said:
But why must we have
completely different languages just for that those two approaches?

Because monocultures die.

Because having broader diversity leads to more evolutionary leaps.

Because the implementations are so fundamentally different.

Because the people who ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGES wanted to explore
different implementations.

Because the people who ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGES wanted to explore
different syntax & semantics.

Because learning different approaches expands your appreciation of &
informs your understanding of both.
 
G

Gregory Ewing

rantingrick said:
I agree however i see merit in both approaches. But why must we have
completely different languages just for that those two approaches?

We have different languages because different people have different
ideas about what a language should be like. Ruby people like user
defined control structures; Python people regard user defined
control structures as an anti-feature. It's fundamentally
impossible for one language to satisfy both sets of people.
 
R

rantingrick

Because monocultures die.

That's an interesting statement Alex (even though you parrot it
constantly). So what IS a mono culture exactly? Lemme see...

"""A single, homogeneous culture without diversity or dissension.
"""

Interesting. Would you consider the Python community to be a
monoculture? We are working towards a singular goal so i would say so.
We should be working towards the language that is best for all but
instead we are working towards the language that is best for US.

How about the Ruby community?

Here's a good one; How about the programming community? These groups
would ALL classify as monocultures Alex. So why are they NOT dying?
Well maybe they are and you just cannot see past your own nose (it
does get fairly long from time to time you know).

I believe (unlike most people) that nature is striving for perfection
NOT for diversity. Diversity is just a byproduct of feeble attempts to
GUESS the correct answer. Here is a thought exercise for the advanced
reader...Which is more efficient; Numerous groups working to create
languages that satisfy their selfish needs OR one group of all the
bright minds working to destroy multiplicity and bring about the one
true language that meets the needs of productivity?

In order to achieve perfection we must propagate unity within the
system and we must destroy multiplicity with a vengeance. We must
unite to defeat multiplicity and in doing so we create innovation.
That is the job of intelligent agents, to BRING ORDER TO THE NATURAL
CHAOS OF THIS UNIVERSE! Your natural instincts are of propagating
diversity (read as selfishness) HOWEVER the future exists only in
unity.

What do you think will be the eventual outcome of the human existence
Alex? Since you have no imagination i will tell you, a singular
intelligence. However an intelligence that is the product of many
"intelligent agents". A unity intelligence if you will. Just think of
it as a botnet alex, i am sure you have plenty of experience in this
area!
Because having broader diversity leads to more evolutionary leaps.

Do you think that if we combine all the worthwhile attributes of the
high level languages that somehow everyone is just going to accept
that forever? No, of course not. HOWEVER instead of splitting off into
sects (and damaging our hive mind capabilities) we need to focus our
efforts on one goal... CREATING THE BEST LANGUAGE WE CAN AT ANY ONE
TIME IN HISTORY... and we will all learn TOGETHER not APART. Diversity
only propagates multiplicity and slows our evolution Alex. It is
selflessness on a grand scale.
Because the implementations are so fundamentally different.

In the big picture that's untrue. Between say Ruby and Python you a
few LARGE differences and many SMALL differences (and even some
replication). I propose that we combine the Ruby and Python languages
using all the best ideas, however dropping the multiplicity.
Because the people who ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGES wanted to explore
different implementations.

Why can they not explore within the hive mind? Why must they hide
their explorations from the greater group. SELFISHNESS

Here is another thought exercise for the advanced reader. Remember in
the old days when furniture was crafted by hand? Not only was the
furniture EXPENSIVE it was also scarce to come by. Why was this the
case. Because human nature is to be selfish. And our selfishness slows
evolution. But one day some very intelligent chap realized that he
could build furniture not only faster but cheaper by using the
assembly line. Now we have furniture stores on practically every
corner at prices almost anyone can afford. Yes i realize "some" of the
products are not of good quality but that is a result of economics
(and greed) not unity.
Because the people who ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGES wanted to explore
different syntax & semantics.

We should have nailed down syntax and semantics long ago alex! This
should have been step one. No instead we have groupA, groupB, and
groupC still fighting about what is best for their selfish needs
without concerning themselves wit the big picture. It's not what is
best for ME, NO, it's what is best for US.

* What syntax is most widely intuitive?
* What semantics are the best for productivity?
* etc...
Because learning different approaches expands your appreciation of &
informs your understanding of both.

Yes, and i agree. But instead of learning in small groups we need to
learn together. Of course we are going to make mistakes along the way.
Heck we may even have to re write the whole spec a time or two. But i
would argue that the chances of making mistakes decrease as the number
of agents increase. I dunno, have you ever heard of a little thing
called Open Source Software. Where people from all over the world
maintain a piece of software. AMAZING HUH? Just imagine if we combined
all the best people from all the current languages. There is your
diversity Alex, however sadly, you have no imagination to see it.
 
S

Steven D'Aprano

rantingrick said:
That's an interesting statement Alex (even though you parrot it
constantly). So what IS a mono culture exactly? Lemme see...

"""A single, homogeneous culture without diversity or dissension.
"""

Interesting. Would you consider the Python community to be a
monoculture? We are working towards a singular goal so i would say so.

We are? Certainly not.

Some people want to make Python more dynamic. Some want it to be less
dynamic. Some care about integrating it with Java or .Net, some don't care
about either. Some are interested in clever optimization tricks, some
oppose adding any more complexity.

Some want it to be faster, and are happy to throw more memory at it to do
so. Some want it to use less memory, because on embedded devices and smart
phones memory is the bottleneck, not time.

Some only program in Python. Some treat Python as merely one language out of
many that they use.

Some come to Python from the C/C++ community, and their wants are influenced
by C. Some come to Python from Lisp, Scheme or Haskell, and their wants are
influenced by functional programming ideas. Some have never programmed
before, and don't know want they want.

We should be working towards the language that is best for all but

Define "best for all", and try not to make it "what Rick wants".


No, Python is not a monoculture. There are the Stackless, Jython, PyPy and
IronPython sub-cultures, all with their own needs, wants and desires. There
are sub-cultures for embedded devices and smart phones, sub-cultures for
those who use Python as a teaching language, for web development, for GUI
development, and for system administration. There are the Numpy and Scipy
sub-cultures, sub-cultures in the fields of linguistics and biology.

I believe (unlike most people) that nature is striving for perfection
NOT for diversity.

Nature isn't striving for anything.

Rick, you think that you're an iconoclast bravely swimming against the tide
of wrong-headed public opinion, but what you believe is not new and it is
not a minority view. It is old, obsolete, and the vast majority of people
with no modern biology education believe something like it. It is,
essentially, just the Victorian concept of the "Great Chain of Being" --
not that it was unique to the Victorians, of course.

Diversity is just a byproduct of feeble attempts to
GUESS the correct answer. Here is a thought exercise for the advanced
reader...Which is more efficient; Numerous groups working to create
languages that satisfy their selfish needs OR one group of all the
bright minds working to destroy multiplicity and bring about the one
true language that meets the needs of productivity?

The first: numerous groups. Anything else is false efficiency. If you think
otherwise, you have seriously missed the point.

Efficiency requires that all needs are met first. "The most efficient way to
build a house" is NOT "Don't build a house, live in a cardboard box, it's
cheaper". Who cares if it is cheaper or not, it's not a house, and doesn't
meet the required needs.

Since needs are frequently in opposition (e.g. the speed/memory trade-off),
a single "true language" must be a compromise language that leaves nobody
happy. Or some dictator (Rick?) declares that such-and-such a set of
features is, by definition, the "perfect" language and those who want
something else have to miss out.

Imagine a world where *every* shop was Walmart. That would be good for
Walmart, but terrible for everyone else. That's Rick's plan for
programming.

Screw that. We don't want "the perfect language", because there is no such
thing and there is no point in wanting square circles or five-sided
triangles or invisible pink unicorns. And even if we did, we wouldn't want
YOUR idea of the perfect language.

Rick, stop trying to "help" the community with these over-reaching grand
schemes that nobody but you wants, that always involve you telling everyone
else that they have to build the system you think you want. Go do something
useful.
 
D

Dennis Lee Bieber

Rick, stop trying to "help" the community with these over-reaching grand
schemes that nobody but you wants, that always involve you telling everyone
else that they have to build the system you think you want. Go do something
useful.

I shouldn't do this, but that last sentence just begs to be
continued...

... like /build/ this supposed perfect system, and see if the world
beats a path to your (R^2) door.
 
A

alex23

rantingrick said:
I believe (unlike most people) that nature is striving for perfection

Your belief is wrong. "Nature" doesn't "strive" for _anything_. Things
in the world are either fit enough to continue their existence or not.
As circumstances change, some things that were once suitably fit for
the environment are no longer so and are replaced. Same with ideas.
There is no "perfection", there is only "what works best now".
What do you think will be the eventual outcome of the human existence
Alex? Since you have no imagination i will tell you, a singular
intelligence.

Firstly: cite some kind of evidence that this "will be the eventual
outcome" or admit you're talking shit.

Secondly: I can imagine humanity evolving into a great many things and
something as limited as a 'botnet' is certainly nothing to be proud of
as a species.
It is selflessness on a grand scale.

I don't really know if you're a troll, have no self-reflective
capability, delusionally believe what you're spouting, or are on or
off medication, but sometimes your hypocrisy is just funny as hell.
Why can they not explore within the hive mind? Why must they hide
their explorations from the greater group. SELFISHNESS

You mean like how Guido hid the Python code base and never let anyone
else touch or influence it in any way?

Rick, you remind me a lot of Bill Hicks yelling, "You are free to do
as we tell you! YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!!" Using terms like
"hive mind" kinda shows that I'm wasting my time pushing the value of
diversity to you.
* What syntax is most widely intuitive?
* What semantics are the best for productivity?

You're inability to recognise the importance of the context in which a
language is used explains your misguided position a lot.

What if a particular language syntax is the best fit for the way 52%
of the population think? What about the other 48%? What if it's a
80/20 split? 90/10? 99/1? At what point are you prepared to sacrifice
the needs and best interests of others for your quest for mythical
perfection?

No need to answer that last one, we already know the answer: from the
very beginning.
 
A

alex23

rantingrick said:
CREATING THE BEST LANGUAGE WE CAN AT ANY ONE
TIME IN HISTORY...

Incidentally, Umberto Eco's "The Search for the Perfect Language"
pretty readily exposes this desire as a lingering vestige of the
Biblical belief in the one true language that was spoken by God. It
also covers in some depth the persistent failure to ever create such a
language.

Fools, history, rinse & repeat.
 
R

rantingrick

We have different languages because different people have different
ideas about what a language should be like. Ruby people like user
defined control structures; Python people regard user defined
control structures as an anti-feature. It's fundamentally
impossible for one language to satisfy both sets of people.

I was thinking more about this comment and it occurred to me that
Python does have user controlled data structures. Just because there
is no "top level syntax" like ruby does not mean these do not exists.
You only have to look below the surface. Take the sort methods of
lists for example...
(100, 0),
(25, 2),
(10,1),
]
lst [(100, 0), (25, 2), (10, 1)]
lst.sort()
lst [(10, 1), (25, 2), (100, 0)]
lst.sort(lambda x,y: cmp(x[1], y[1]))
lst
[(100, 0), (10, 1), (25, 2)]

....that looks like a "user defined control" structure to me. So how
can an anti-feature become part of the language proper? (devils
advocate here) :)

I leave the discovery of other user defined control structures for the
advanced readers.
 
C

Corey Richardson

Excerpts from rantingrick's message of Tue Jul 05 07:42:39 -0400 2011:
I was thinking more about this comment and it occurred to me that
Python does have user controlled data structures. Just because there
is no "top level syntax" like ruby does not mean these do not exists.
You only have to look below the surface. Take the sort methods of
lists for example...
(100, 0),
(25, 2),
(10,1),
]
lst [(100, 0), (25, 2), (10, 1)]
lst.sort()
lst [(10, 1), (25, 2), (100, 0)]
lst.sort(lambda x,y: cmp(x[1], y[1]))
lst
[(100, 0), (10, 1), (25, 2)]

...that looks like a "user defined control" structure to me. So how
can an anti-feature become part of the language proper? (devils
advocate here) :)

How is giving the sort method a function by which to determine the relative
value of objects a control structure? Do you know what a control structure is?
It's something that you use to modify control flow:

if foo <= bar:
foo += 1
else:
bar += 1

That's a control structurem the "if-else". I don't know what Ruby calls a
control structure, but that's what it is. for and while are in there too.
When you run lst.sort(lambda x, y: cmp(x[1], y[1])), what happens?

We'll call that argument srt, here's a sample (naive) implementation:

def sort(key):
lst = self.internal_list
for n in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
for i in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
if srt(lst, lst[i+1]) < 0:
lst, lst[i+1] = lst[i+1], lst

Untested, probably doesn't work either. See what's in there? An if. Nothing
"user-defined" at all. Sure, WHAT the if does is user-controlled with the
key, but that doesn't make that particular if a new control structure, and
it certainly doesn't make the key a control structure. You can pass a key
to a sort even in C and that certainly doesn't have user defined control
structures.
--
Corey Richardson
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves"
-- Abraham Lincoln

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOEzYUAAoJEAFAbo/KNFvpoecH+wT/2q3RxbQanTEipm+K+SHW
NtlmmjgqUahG0GhR23IjpRswEQDtUNn0OAR0kcYQlw8EtsT8OWYDPc6HWm6YS7jS
CzeGu58sMOG7BolmardcNAH1uEdoas5xa1cXFGnYaUjm8ao3zWsioloz2njZQLbW
cxLgu8uK9nVa2KfNskkn8COqKLhcHBCVlBn6+EpJTo6ltYH7y9oqpb+gUfpTlfFn
z23R+M9A7WBHIkhox4Qgwl4egKgr90FyphLGnV3xzhZvz4TEaGj6bI/9e2DTpk08
5pmn2RTG1giiQakf6HGTXDglOtgmpBd0WqYaYwB6vjgz1RI5X+LTtWDryYZKNLA=
=BbRV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
S

sal migondis

Your belief is wrong. "Nature" doesn't "strive" for _anything_. Things
in the world are either fit enough to continue their existence or not.
As circumstances change, some things that were once suitably fit for
the environment are no longer so and are replaced. Same with ideas.
There is no "perfection", there is only "what works best now".

How could a belief be wrong?

All from the land of creationism.
Firstly: cite some kind of evidence that this "will be the eventual
outcome" or admit you're talking shit.

Secondly: I can imagine humanity evolving into a great many things and
something as limited as a 'botnet' is certainly nothing to be proud of
as a species.


I don't really know if you're a troll,

Beats me... I think everybody else does..
have no self-reflective
capability, delusionally believe what you're spouting, or are on or
off medication, but sometimes your hypocrisy is just funny as hell.


You mean like how Guido hid the Python code base and never let anyone
else touch or influence it in any way?

Rick, you remind me a lot of Bill Hicks yelling, "You are free to do
as we tell you! YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!!" Using terms like
"hive mind" kinda shows that I'm wasting my time pushing the value of
diversity to you.

Now you're taking a troll as an excuse for your own trolling.

No need to answer that last one, we already know the answer: from the
very beginning.

In the beginning was a singularity... and Albert Einstein was a chain-
smoker.

Sal.
 
A

Andrew Berg

How could a belief be wrong?
Beliefs aren't subjective. One's taste in music, for example, is
largely subjective and can't be right or wrong, but a belief (which has
to do with facts) certainly can be.
All from the land of creationism.
That's from rantingrick, not alex23.
In the beginning was a singularity... and Albert Einstein was a chain-
smoker.
Either you're taking that statement out of context, or you're making an
esoteric joke. If it's not the latter, I suggest you read the sentence
before it.
 
R

rantingrick

How is giving the sort method a function by which to determine the relative
value of objects a control structure? Do you know what a control structure is?
It's something that you use to modify control flow:

if foo <= bar:
        foo += 1
else:
        bar += 1

Interesting, corey. Very interesting. However the fun is yet to come
so stay tuned...
That's a control structurem the "if-else". I don't know what Ruby calls a
control structure, but that's what it is. for and while are in there too.
When you run lst.sort(lambda x, y: cmp(x[1], y[1])), what happens?

So are you suggesting that a control structure must have at minimum
one of "for", "while", or "if"? Okay, i listening. Go on...
We'll call that argument srt, here's a sample (naive) implementation:

def sort(key):
        lst = self.internal_list
        for n in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
                for i in range(len(self.internal_list) - 1):
                        if srt(lst, lst[i+1]) < 0:
                                lst, lst[i+1] = lst[i+1], lst

See what's in there? An if.


Yes there IS and "if" in there and IF you look closely enough you may
see two "for"'s also. So by your own definition this (naive) code
qualifies as a control structure. Interesting Corey, very
interesting.

But wait just a second Corey. My statement has nothing to do with
sort. sort is just the vehicle. My statement is that the cmp argument
to sort IS a user defined control structure (the code block to be
exact). It doesn't matter that the code is contained in a function
object. That's like saying a cake is not a cake because it was
packaged in a shoe box instead of a cake box.
Sure, WHAT the if does is user-controlled with the
key,

Well as long as you can admit that fact.
but that doesn't make that particular if a new control structure,

Oh i see. Change the rules as we go eh?
and
it certainly doesn't make the key a control structure. You can pass a key
to a sort even in C and that certainly doesn't have user defined control
structures.

What the hell does C have to do with Python Corey? One thing is for
sure, i always get a giggle from your self defeating posts. You're the
best enemy a person could have. Thank you. *bows*
 
C

Chris Angelico

All from the land of creationism.

I don't see the connection between creationism and a Borg-like
"singularity of intelligence" where we all lose individuality. But
this is now decidedly off-topic for a Python mailing list.

ChrisA
 
C

Chris Angelico

You're the
best enemy a person could have. Thank you. *bows*

Compliments are made to be returned, and this one is particularly well
suited. *bow*

Chris Angelico
 
T

Tim Chase

One thing is for sure, i always get a giggle from your self
defeating posts. You're the best enemy a person could have.
Thank you. *bows*

Every time I see a rantingrick post, it's like watching the Black
Knight scene from the Holy Grail yet again. You know what's
going to happen; you know he has a purposeless fight; you know
he's going to laughably lose; and you know he's going to *think*
that he is invincible & has won.

ARTHUR: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
BLACK KNIGHT: I'm invincible!
ARTHUR: You're a looney.

Sigh...ready for an intermission...

-tkc
 
R

rantingrick

rantingrick wrote:
Some people want to make Python more dynamic. Some want it to be less
dynamic. Some care about integrating it with Java or .Net, some don't care
about either. Some are interested in clever optimization tricks, some
oppose adding any more complexity.

Some want it to be faster, and are happy to throw more memory at it to do
so. Some want it to use less memory, because on embedded devices and smart
phones memory is the bottleneck, not time.

Some only program in Python. Some treat Python as merely one language outof
many that they use.

Some come to Python from the C/C++ community, and their wants are influenced
by C. Some come to Python from Lisp, Scheme or Haskell, and their wants are
influenced by functional programming ideas. Some have never programmed
before, and don't know want they want.

And are any of them getting what they want? No. And they should not.
(stay tuned for the reason "why not")
Define "best for all", and try not to make it "what Rick wants".

You want features? And remember i am talking about scripting/glue
level languages here. Something to replace Python, Ruby, Perl,
JavaScript, etc, etc not some "pie-in-the-sky", "single-answer-to-all-
our-problems" pipe dream language.

* Intuitive syntax.
* Productivity friendly.
* Complex enough to solve large problems but simple enough for simple
problems (that does include extending into C when needed)
* Multi paradigm (problem
* Promotes a culture of code readability (because people read source;
not just machines!).
* there is always more.
* we all know this list steven!
No, Python is not a monoculture. There are the Stackless, Jython, PyPy and
IronPython sub-cultures, all with their own needs, wants and desires. There
are sub-cultures for embedded devices and smart phones, sub-cultures for
those who use Python as a teaching language, for web development, for GUI
development, and for system administration. There are the Numpy and Scipy
sub-cultures, sub-cultures in the fields of linguistics and biology.

Hmm. Just think how far ahead we would be if these folks would stop
trying to support petty differences and focus on a singular Python
language?

But let's not kid ourselves here!

This problem is far bigger than python. Selfishness infests every
group of humans on this planet. Why do we need multiple OS's? Just so
one can say "\" is the proper file path sep and someone else can say
"/" is the proper one! Are you kidding me?

Look at the multiplicity. Look at the asinine nature of it all and for
once in your life join the group that is the future of human
evolution, not the evolutionary dead-end! BTW: Tell Lucy i said hello!

Nature isn't striving for anything.
[...]
what you believe is not new and it is
not a minority view. It is old, obsolete,

Before you go out babbling about "concepts" you should understand what
these "concepts" are; or at least at the minimum read the freaking
Wiki! My statements are in no way remotely related to "Great Chain of
Being" and this feeble attempt to prove so is obviously another one of
your half stuffed straw-men arguments.
and the vast majority of people
with no modern biology education believe something like it.

You sure presume to know quite a lot about "uneducated people". Do you
know these folks personally? Do you chit-chat with them on the subway
or whilst sharing a Frappuccino?
Since needs are frequently in opposition (e.g. the speed/memory trade-off),
a single "true language" must be a compromise language that leaves nobody
happy.

Oh Steven, that's just your fear of unity acting out again. Yes,
what's good for the group will not *always* be good for you, or me, or
xah lee! But what matters is progress. Not your selfish needs Steven.
Or some dictator (Rick?) declares that such-and-such a set of
features is, by definition, the "perfect" language and those who want
something else have to miss out.

I have never held myself out as some sort of dictator. These decisions
must be made in a democratic manner. This is FUD.
Imagine a world where *every* shop was Walmart. That would be good for
Walmart, but terrible for everyone else. That's Rick's plan for
programming.

You know Steven, wal-mart is a very successful company. And wal-mart
meets the needs of the many. Again you fail to see the truth behind
the curtain. If (as you say) wal-mart really is such a bad company and
it's existence is hurting "the many"... then explain to the class (if
you can) why wal mart is the most successful retail chain in the
history of the world?

We are listening...

Do you realize that without customers buying products that wal-mart
could never get to this pinnacle of retail success? If you are
correct, then people buy from wal-mart even though wal-mart is "bad"
for them. Please explain this reversal of reality Steven because i
think you are watching too much MTV and it's rotting your brain.
Go do something useful.
Well i might just go to wal-mart!
 
C

Chris Angelico

You want features? And remember i am talking about scripting/glue
level languages here. Something to replace Python, Ruby, Perl,
JavaScript, etc, etc not some "pie-in-the-sky",  "single-answer-to-all-
our-problems" pipe dream language.

 * Intuitive syntax. Subjective.

 * Productivity friendly.
Depends heavily on the task at hand. HQ9+ is extremely productivity
friendly if you're trying to write a quine.
 * Complex enough to solve large problems but simple enough for simple
problems (that does include extending into C when needed)
Subjective. Any Turing-complete language is technically complex enough
to solve large problems, but would you care to write a web browser in
Ook?
 * Multi paradigm (problem ?

 * Promotes a culture of code readability (because people read source;
not just machines!).
from __future__ import braces # this'll make it more readable for C programmers
Hmm. Just think how far ahead we would be if these folks would stop
trying to support petty differences and focus on a singular Python
language?

Imagine how much faster we'd all reach our destinations if whenever I
push my car's accelerator, it moves every car in the world the same
distance in the same direction!
This problem is far bigger than python. Selfishness infests every
group of humans on this planet. Why do we need multiple OS's? Just so
one can say "\" is the proper file path sep and someone else can say
"/" is the proper one! Are you kidding me?

I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount to admitting both
that Unix is superior to Windows, AND that Apple got it right.

However, if the entire world moved to one kernel, that would be a
spof. That's why the DNS root servers don't all run the same software;
if a flaw were found in BIND that brought everything down, there would
still be three root servers (two of them anycasted) which would be
unaffected.

There's another good reason for diversity, too. Suppose you know only
one language, and you want to verify that your program is producing
correct results. What do you do? You're forced to do the job manually.
If you have a completely different system, you could verify it against
that - for instance, check your Python program by implementing
equivalent functionality in Lua.
Look at the multiplicity. Look at the asinine nature of it all and for
once in your life join the group that is the future of human
evolution, not the evolutionary dead-end! BTW: Tell Lucy i said hello!

You can't know what the future of human evolution is, unless it
involves time travel.
Oh Steven, that's just your fear of unity acting out again. Yes,
what's good for the group will not *always* be good for you, or me, or
xah lee! But what matters is progress. Not your selfish needs Steven.

And there you have the nub. Your idea of a perfect language is one
that won't always be good for any particular person. This is where
diversity comes to the fore. I'm currently using Google's V8 engine as
my scripting engine, but I need it to be slightly different - so I
modified it. I have offered the patch back to the community, and it
may or may not end up being accepted, but that is immaterial. Right
here, right now, I am running a modified V8, and it works FOR ME.

What you're saying is that "progress" is more important than any individual....
I have never held myself out as some sort of dictator. These decisions
must be made in a democratic manner. This is FUD.

.... which is exactly what many dictators have said. However, that is immaterial.

Democracy DOES NOT WORK. Plain and simple. You cannot build a
programming language democratically.

Python has a BDFL. Open Office has had a variety of owners, and when
enough people dislike the current owner, the project forks (eg
LibreOffice). Savoynet is run by Marc Shepherd, who took over in 1998.
All the best commanders listen to people, but ultimately, they make
the decisions. Even in USA politics, where people talk proudly of
living in a democracy, what you actually have is a President who
wields a lot of power.
You know Steven, wal-mart is a very successful company. And wal-mart
meets the needs of the many.

They're cheap, ubiquitous, and convenient. They are NOT the ideal for
every situation. Of course they're successful - that's because they
buy and sell things at a profit. Steven never recommended abolishing
Walmart, just said that it would be bad for people if Walmart were the
only shop anywhere.
Again you fail to see the truth behind
the curtain. If (as you say) wal-mart really is such a bad company and
it's existence is hurting "the many"... then explain to the class (if
you can) why wal mart is the most successful retail chain in the
history of the world?

Success just means they're able to make money. Fake pharmaceuticals
companies can make money too; they send out roughly twelve million
emails for every sale they get, but it's still a rip-roaring business.
I doubt you would want all businesses in the world to follow THAT
model.

Walmart may and may not be hurting "the many". They certainly are not
serving "the all". Other shops are also able to make a profit, which
strongly suggests that they, too, are wanted.
Do you realize that without customers buying products that wal-mart
could never get to this pinnacle of retail success? If you are
correct, then people buy from wal-mart even though wal-mart is "bad"
for them. Please explain this reversal of reality Steven because i
think you are watching too much MTV and it's rotting your brain.

If Steven is correct, then people buy from other shops because they
are better for them than Walmart is. And that means that trying to
unify ALL shopping under the one company name will be a disaster.

I hope I make myself clear?

ChrisA
 
A

Andrew Berg

I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount to admitting both
that Unix is superior to Windows, AND that Apple got it right.
In my experience, it's been the GUIs that are awful and the backend
stuff that's been good in Windows. Yes, the NT kernel still has some
long standing bugs, but MS has done well with things that matter to
sysadmins. chkdsk, for example, has been around for ages, but I still
don't know of anything that really beats it. It's certainly saved my ass
on several occasions. MS also bought the Sysinternals suite of software,
and those programs continue to be very good. I've only had a small
amount of experience with it so far, but Powershell seems to be an
excellent tool for admin scripting since it interfaces with WMI so well.
When it comes to things that interface with your average idiot, however,
MS consistently drops the ball. The new interface design they've imposed
on their office suite and Explorer is not only just plain bad, but it's
infectious (and it's the reason the Firefox and Thunderbird default GUI
configurations look horrendous). Another area MS fails it is sensible
defaults. They put tons of effort into increasing security in the
kernel, but don't use the security features (I'll try to come up with
more detail on this later). Explorer /still/ hides known extensions by
default, which /still/ makes it easier for bad people to get their
victims to execute malware. What I think is that MS should focus on the
kernel and encourage others to do their GUIs.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,898
Latest member
BlairH7607

Latest Threads

Top