Python and Flaming Thunder

[castironpi at gmail.com]

On May 13, 10:35 am, castiro... at gmail.com wrote:
> On May 13, 10:24 am, Dave Parker <davepar... at flamingthunder.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >  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.
>
> > On May 13, 8:34 am, hdante <hda... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 10:58 am, Paul McGuire <pt... at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 13, 8:32 am, Dave Parker <davepar... at flamingthunder.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Don't let yourself be irritated by castironpi
>
> > > > > I'm not the sort to get irritated by anyone.  There is value in all
> > > > > interaction.
>
> > > > Not this interaction, I'm afraid.  What irritates *me* about
> > > > castironpi is that he uses a chatterbot to clutter up the threads
> > > > here.  If you go back to his postings from a year ago (and selected
> > > > ones since), his comments are coherent and sensible.  These rambling
> > > > stream-of-consciousness rants about t.v.'s and coffee are (I guess)
> > > > his idea of a joke.  But they are certainly not worth your time in
> > > > trying to respond to them.
>
> > > > -- Paul
>
> > >  I don't think castironpi so annoying that I should filter its
> > > messages. It would be enough if he were better tuned. He is much
> > > smarter than the emacs shrink, for example. :-P
>
> > >  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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - 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.