41–50 of 96 posts
Latch concept is probably worth exploring further. Does anyone know of a language with native variables being a FIFO pipe? I.e. x = 1 // x now contains 1 x = 2 // x now contains 1 and 2 y = x // x now contains 2, y now contains 1 ... This sort of thing. Not as an add-on construct, but as a native part of the language.
Am I the only one thinking this code looks ugly and hacky. I would never code in this.
Can't be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that Python is very easy to read for someone new to programming, particularly someone familiar with mathematical notation. Something like: for animal in ['dog', 'cat', 'bear']: print animal strikes me as intuitive and obvious, both absolutely and also relative to the equivalents in other languages.
That is not necessarily a sign of a good language, though. ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL is also readable, and yet (thankfully!) we've mostly abandoned COBOL. And no, I'm not saying Python is bad, or like COBOL - just that readability and quality of a language are not necessarily related.
Latch concept is probably worth exploring further. Does anyone know of a language with native variables being a FIFO pipe? I.e. x = 1 // x now contains 1 x = 2 // x now contains 1 and 2 y = x // x now contains 2, y now contains 1 ... This sort of thing. Not as an add-on construct, but as a native part of the language.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe you can claim Windows supported by Cygwin proxy.
Why not?
It's a blurry question regarding where you say a VM/Compatibility shim means that you no longer running the application natively. The same can be asked of Java, Flash, and a lot of interrupted/bytecode languages. The distinction to me in this case is that the code is meant to be compiled to native code (which it isn't in this case), and Cygwin is not a common platform available on a Windows system.
[Edit:] The asker of parent question should not be down voted, it is a reasonable question, and as I've stated it's open to interruption.
But: when it says, "ANI is designed to abstract away from the idea of an "algorithm" altogether," I go, "quackery."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not necessarily a sign of a good language, though. ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL is also readable, and yet (thankfully!) we've mostly abandoned COBOL. And no, I'm not saying Python is bad, or like COBOL - just that readability and quality of a language are not necessarily related.
I don't know that I agree, I really am not sure what "GIVING COBOL" means.
(Yes, I just spent the last 10 minutes reading the COBOL pages on Wikipedia and Wikibooks.)