Python and Flaming Thunder

[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.

On May 13, 10:38 am, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de... at nospam.web.de> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> 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