×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

125 comments

Javascript (4, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874501)

Python developer, I think this is great. I'm glad that Python is gaining more acceptance.

If the quality is on par with their Javascript library, we're in for a real treat

Javascript The 'L' Word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874540)

"Python developer, I think this is great. I'm glad that Python is gaining more acceptance."

Up next...Lisp! Oh, wait.

BTW What do Yahoo API's provide?

Re:Javascript The 'L' Word. (1)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874993)

Up next...Lisp! Oh, wait.

The web already has a Lisp dialect. It's called XML.

Re:Javascript The 'L' Word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875059)

XML isn't a Lisp dialect, it's a crime against humanity.

Re:Javascript The 'L' Word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15878309)

Precisely the reason why it's a dialect of lisp.

Rogues gallery of languages (-1, Flamebait)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875053)

Python developer, I think this is great. I'm glad that Python is gaining more acceptance.

Javascript, PHP and now Python. A real rogues gallery of languages, each more ill-conceived and vomitous than the last. Use scheme [mit.edu] . The language is simpler than the others yet for more expressive and powerful. Learn something. Use it!

You're not helping things. (5, Insightful)

Virak (897071) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875154)

If you want people to switch to Scheme, explain why they should and how it would benefit them, don't just say "lol ur language is teh sux, use mine". That's exactly the kind of stupid shit that gives Lisp users a reputation as a bunch of arrogant assholes.

And yes, Scheme is a great language, and I love it, but it's not the best thing for every situation. If you truly think one language is the best choice for everything, then you're a total idiot.

Also, no even slightly popular browser supports client side scripting with Scheme, and most web hosts don't offer server-side scripting with it either.

Re:You're not helping things. (0)

computational super (740265) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875244)

If you truly think one language is the best choice for everything, then you're a total idiot.

That's right! If you write applications that require fewer than 5 different languages for ongoing maintenance, you're just fitting a square peg into a round hole! You're just one of the "I have a hammer so everything is a nail" people! Your custom JVM written in C should be interpreting java byte codes that have embedded Python scripts that build Javascript output that interpret TCL for maximum flexibility! Bah! One language!

Having it both ways (0)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875266)

That's exactly the kind of stupid shit that gives Lisp users a reputation as a bunch of arrogant assholes. And yes, Scheme is a great language, and I love it, but it's not the best thing for every situation. If you truly think one language is the best choice for everything, then you're a total idiot.

First to insult me as a Lisp bigot, then you try to associate yourself with it. Amusing! You Python bottom feeders shouldn't be so sensitive.

Re:Having it both ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875350)

Amusing! You Python bottom feeders shouldn't be so sensitive.

And you Schemers shouldn't be so delusional.

Scheme is just screwdriver looking for a nail to drive, in this context.

Re:Having it both ways (1)

Virak (897071) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875367)

And how exactly is this contradictory? I can be a Lisp user without being a stuck up ass who thinks that *their* language is the only one that anyone should ever use for anything.

You're not confusing things. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15878106)

"Also, no even slightly popular browser supports client side scripting with Scheme, and most web hosts don't offer server-side scripting with it either."

JsScheme [bluishcoder.co.nz]

Scheme hosting...sort of [lisperati.com]

Re:Rogues gallery of languages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15876042)

Ah yes, Lisp. The language where each programmer uses macros to try to reinvent their very own real object system, real language syntax, real containers, and real OS interface library; poorly.

Misconceptions about scheme (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877596)

The language where each programmer uses macros to try to reinvent their very own real object system,

Some do. I use yasos which is part of slib. You must be a C++ person who doesn't like macros because one of the priests of strong typing told you not to. A pity. Macros are an irreplacable feature being forgotten now in dumbed down languages. Read Paul Graham's On Lisp someday and get clued in.

real language syntax,

???

real containers,

Scheme supports Lists, vectors, and alists and iteration natively. Libstdc++ has spent the last 10 years trying to catch up, and doing so poorly. Python doesn't even have these. You don't know what you are talking about.

and real OS interface library

What slackjawed Python programmer doesn't spend every waking hour "wrapping" existing C API's. My Gentoo system is rotten with them. It saddens me that there is not a full scheme system yet. In the meantime scheme shell is pleasant way to interact with a GNU/Linux system.

Re:Misconceptions about scheme (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15877966)

You must be a C++ person
I am very experienced in C++, and it totally sucks. Yet you go ahead and make the assumption that I would advocate usage of such an RSI-inducing language. I was also using Lisp decades ago when you were probably still in grade school, and I am very familiar a couple of dozen other languages. Sorry to break your bubble, but Scheme isn't the panacea that you make it out to be. It's a good language for writing compilers or implementing other languages, but beyond that niche it's not so hot.
Read Paul Graham's On Lisp someday and get clued in.
I have implemented a version of scheme, including macros. So you can whip up extremely powerful constructs that are non-standard and incompatible with other people's powerful constructs. Sounds great on paper, but in the real world, you don't really get anywhere with it. 50 years after Lisp was invented, it's still on the fringes, and that's one reason why: no standardized powerful constructs. Just a Balkanized world of hundreds of little clever individual setups.
???
Yes, that about sums up your comprehension of the fact that syntax is important. And Lisp has almost no syntax. It's all semantics. That's great for a computer to read, but most peoples' brains don't work that way (except for a few ivory tower eggheads, the same tiny group that's been harping on how great Lisp's lack of syntax is for the past 50 years). So what if your programs can operate on programs? Self-modifying code is almost always too clever for its own good, and as I pointed out, the work of macros is better done by putting real features into the language in the first place.
Scheme supports Lists, vectors, and alists and iteration natively. Python doesn't even have these.
Vectors: yes it does. S-Lists: not needed because vectors are more efficient and versatile anyway. Alists: hashes are more versatile and efficient. Iteration: sure. And for all of these things: Python (as well as most every other language on the planet) uses much more concise and easy-to-read forms for containers than Lisp. Bottom line: you don't have any clue what you're talking about.
What slackjawed Python programmer doesn't spend every waking hour "wrapping" existing C API's.
The Python libraries are absolutely vast compared to Scheme's sad excuse for standard libraries.

If there's anything worse than a single-language bigot, it's a single language bigot who has no grip on reality.

Re:Rogues gallery of languages (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876163)

Bah, Smalltalk is better than all of those.

I could live with it (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876427)

I can't say I have specialized in it, but I have used it. If you are going to program with side effects (OO) it doesn't get any simpler. I could live with it. How can anyone explain the madness of Python's fashionability over smalltalk?

Re:I could live with it (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877102)

1. The free version of Python is the standard version. So a new developer will get to use exactly what the best developers are using.

2. Libraries.

Re:I could live with it (1)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877256)

1. There is no "Smalltalk". There are different sets of libraries, e.g. Squeak, F-Script, all based around the syntax and paradigm. 2. Smalltalk never became very popular, partly because at the time the speed boost of a lower level language was more noticeable than it is now. Python is also less fast than lower level languages, but that isn't as important now and Python has gotten a lot of momentum.

Re:I could live with it (1)

jma05 (897351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15878684)

Python reached critical mass, SmallTalk did not. A language is not everything, there is also the tools, libraries, community etc. Python is not best at any one of those. But it is good in every one of those.

Let's take an example:
I don't like C++ as a language. But I much rather develop a Win32 database front-end in C++ Builder rather than Python. Why? Because this specific tool was perfected for that specific task with a proper IDE and a great framework. Likewise, there are tasks for which Python is the best from *my* toolbox.

One reason why Scheme and Lisp did not become popular is their lack of human friendly syntax. Regardless of how you *feel* about it, emperically we know that people do not like to read straight parse trees. While coding in parse trees make certain things possible, people are not looking for those features. I would like to see macros in Python at some point, but that is not on the top of the wish list.

See this link for more differences between Scheme and Python
http://web.archive.org/web/20040629200740/http://s unsite.bilkent.edu.tr/pub/languages/pub/doc/python VSscheme.html [archive.org]

Re:Rogues gallery of languages (1)

Peaker (72084) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877273)

The language is simpler than the others yet for more expressive and powerful. Learn something. Use it!

Oh is it?

Scheme with or without macros?

Scheme without macros is a laughably weak language compared to Python.
Scheme with macros can not be said to be simpler than Python.

More expressive? Show me any good expressive Scheme program that can not be expressed with round-the-same-length Python program, that is also easier on the eyes?

Rogues gallery of arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15878053)

"More expressive? Show me any good expressive Scheme program that can not be expressed with round-the-same-length Python program, that is also easier on the eyes?"

Funny how you wrote those specs. Someone could meet all the rest, and you could pull a subjective "but it hurts my eyes!". Fortunately the real world is more practical than that.

Re:Rogues gallery of arguments (1)

bhaberman (898289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15878503)

Hurting the eyes is an infinitely practical metric. The parentheses in Scheme make it truly painful to read and write, at least for me. Python is very easy to read and write. I use both Scheme and Python, and while I have never had trouble with Python indentation I always mess up the parentheses in Scheme, and I continually have to start counting to figure out where things begin and end. If you want a good functional language that's easy on the eyes, use Haskell.

Re:Javascript (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875099)

I love how python throws up if you indent using tabs.

Re:Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875322)

I love how people who've never written a line of Python code feel the need to lie about it.

Seriously, try writing Python and indenting with tabs. It works fine.

Re:Javascript (1)

EatHam (597465) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875455)

if you use the Python IDE it does; however, if you develop for Windows, and use Notepad++ or Notepad, it does not work fine.

Re:Javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875625)

Yes, it does work fine.

I'll bet any amount of money that your problem is that you are indenting with tabs on some lines and spaces on other lines, which is something that Python cannot compensate for because tabs aren't a fixed width.

The reason you aren't seeing it in an IDE is because the IDE is automatically converting the tabs to spaces or the spaces to tabs.

I'll repeat myself: Python works fine when you indent with tabs. Only people without any kind of clue about Python say otherwise.

Re:Javascript (1)

stuntpope (19736) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875988)

Wrong, and though I'm redundant, I'll repeat it so it's visible in the thread. You can write Python in DOS edit, notepad, TextPad, anything on windows that saves as plain text, and as long as you are consistent with what you use for indentation (all tabs, or all spaces), it will work.

Re:Javascript (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876076)

I would never understand python and making it indent-dependant ruined the language in my opinion, lack of block begin/close is just lame and makes the stuff harder to read besides it goes against one of the main principles of programming . Programs must have an start and an end.

I actually think that if anything it makes things harder to read. For an scripting language that is supposed to be easy then specific begin and end blocks for different kinds of statements are always a good idea. So you know that "that while is finishing just after that if finishes" instead of "I see two }} , I'll have to scroll up to figure out what they are closing" or "I see that statements are not so on the right anymore I wonder what actually finished here".

If the idea behind that was saving time then it probably has some credit but how much time is that anyways? I also thing that indenting wastes more time than that. If the idea was to make programs smaller I would wonder what were they smoking, an scripting language would never be good enough for big projects, and would be perfect for small ones. In other words the space saved by this idea is almost null.

If the idea was to make python unique, congratulations! You just have a unique language that has one of the worst syntax designs ever!.

Well I am not saying python sucks or anything I am just saying that I can't stand that kind of syntax - I am only talking for myself here.

Re:Javascript (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15876441)

lack of block begin/close is just lame

Why? It's the same amount of functionality in less code.

and makes the stuff harder to read

Have you ever tried to read a Python program? Python's one of the most readable programming languages around. Part of this is because it doesn't use entirely superfluous syntax like curly braces everywhere.

it goes against one of the main principles of programming . Programs must have an start and an end.

What are you talking about? You do realise that the beginning and end of a block is still there, even if there's no explicit syntax marker present?

How can you possibly get the idea in your head that because Python uses whitespace to delineate blocks that it means Python programs have no beginning or end? Have you ever programmed - in any language? Or are you just making this up as you go along?

So you know that "that while is finishing just after that if finishes" instead of "I see two }} , I'll have to scroll up to figure out what they are closing" or "I see that statements are not so on the right anymore I wonder what actually finished here".

So your problem isn't the significant whitespace at all, it's the fact that you don't have to close blocks with a statement that's unique to the statement that began the block. Virtually all programming languages suffer from this problem, it's nothing unique to Python.

Well I am not saying python sucks or anything I am just saying that I can't stand that kind of syntax

Quick question: have you ever spent any significant amount of time writing Python?

Actually try Python (1)

Peaker (72084) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877302)

Many of us Pythoneers have been there. Exactly where you are, bitching about the "whitespace".
Only after using it for a little while we understood that we can never go back.
The way I resisted whitespace in the beginning now seems so stupid..

There really is no real claim against significant whitespace except the knee-jerk reaction of ".. but .. but .. its just wrong!"

If you actually try to use Python, you'll never want to go back to cluttering your visual space with unnecessary noise {}.

There's always the obvious option of using #{ and #} around your indented blocks :-)

Re:Actually try Python (1)

kace (557434) | more than 7 years ago | (#15878569)

Amen. You've got to have whitespace in any program anyway just to make it readable -- why shouldn't it do some work?!

And, please, I'd rather crawl through a ditch full of broken bottles than suffer through even one more "bracket audit."
"... four, five, ... uhm, .... One, two, three, ...."

In a large program, though, I do tend to use comments to identify the end of blocks.

Python is a great language. People who get hung up on a piddling syntax thing like this are missing the point.

Re:Javascript (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877633)

C/C++/Python/Perl/PHP/Javascript/ServersideJS/Java

They're all good, they're all useful, and they're all readable (although Perl comes at the bottom of my list.)

But your block-ending comment is inane. You can never know *what* block was ending (ie, what control or condition statement started the block) without scrolling up, indentation-dependant or curly-brace dependant. You must use *really* fancy closing brakets; the kind that actually contain meta-data on the block they're closing or something.

I kinda like Python regarding intendation because nobody can check anything in if it isn't properly indented. C/C++ sources edited by teams of 10+ end up getting pretty messy and unreliable. The amusing thing is that you dont need *any* indentation in C/C++ et al, and yet people still do it because .... drum roll .. it makes the code easier to read.

Spend some time with Python and stop outright dismissing languages. Its got its place in the world of languages. I'm immediately suspicious of programmers who dismiss languages outright. It suggests to me that you havn't worked in a programmer in many different fields where a wide variety of tools are useful, or even better, the kind of job where using a wide variety of tools, if intelligently selected and used, makes development easier to code and easier to maintain.

But picking on indent-dependant or curly-brace dependant .. man, that is so esotaric, thats a programmer who is missing the point. Its a question of preference, not language superiority. Different people prefer different things, but no serious programmer would consider it a reason to tear down a language.

Whython (3, Interesting)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874546)

It's pretty cool of Yahoo to provide so much to the dev community. It's definitely improved my feelings about the company.

I wonder why they've made this foray into the Python world? I know they decided to focus on PHP a few years back. Did they find some tasks were easier to accomplish in Python? Or are they simply trying to reach out to another developer community?

Here's to progress (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874596)

It's pretty cool of Yahoo to provide so much to the dev community. It's definitely improved my feelings about the company.

I agree completely, who cares about human rights violations when a company has a developer website. If Hitler were alive today, he'd definately have a developer website and a charitable foundation to improve his public image.

Re:Here's to progress (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874792)

Did you honestly just compare giving up the name of a journalist to the attempted genocide of Jewish people? You are one brave... Oh, you posted AC. I take that back.

No, providing a few dev tools does not make past mistakes 'better'. But it does show they can actually care.

Re:Here's to progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874898)

Did you honestly just compare giving up the name of a journalist to the attempted genocide of Jewish people?

No

You are one brave... Oh, you posted AC. I take that back.

In a world where people are imprisioned for expressing themselves, do you expect me to post onto a web forum using my real name?

No, providing a few dev tools does not make past mistakes 'better'. But it does show they can actually care.

It does? Does assisting in human rights violations shows that they care.. or not? You pretty much just confirmed my point.

Re:Here's to progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15876717)

In a world where people are imprisioned for expressing themselves, do you expect me to post onto a web forum using my real name?

Wow, get your head out of your ass.
Like anybody cares about your posts at Slashdot

Re:Here's to progress (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875188)

don't feed the trolls :)

2004 (2, Funny)

booch (4157) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875378)

Python is so 2004. Everyone knows that Ruby is the current language du jour. Yahoo needs to catch up.

How refreshing! (1, Interesting)

y5 (993724) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874550)

Every time I see a story about Yahoo concerning developers, it's exactly what I want to hear. While their competitors are saying "do no evil", Yahoo seems to be living it.

I don't know if I'm quite there yet, but my hard-to-break habit of Googling everything might be worth breaking if this kind of developer-focused attitude from Yahoo continues like it has. It's at least very tempting.

Re:How refreshing! (3, Insightful)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874643)

Because Google's Summer of Code, or code.google.com or, more importantly, code.google.com/hosting weren't enough? The hundred patches that Google gave back to Wine after getting Wine to work with Picasa, or the many other libraries and APIs that Google provides. What Yahoo is doing is great, but you're not giving Google nearly enough credit.
Regards,
Steve

Re:How refreshing! (5, Interesting)

y5 (993724) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874733)

What Yahoo is doing is great, but you're not giving Google nearly enough credit.

You might be right. But I've had the chance to use the Web API's for Yahoo, Google, and MSN. Yahoo's Web Search API has been much easier to use than Google's or MSN's. I know there are many other API's to use than just web search, but I've been impressed with what I've seen from Yahoo, more so than from the others.

Direction is everything, and you have to admit Yahoo has been moving in the right direction lately. Here's to hoping they don't lose focus of what's giving them such good publicity! =)

FIXED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874816)

Every time I see a story about Yahoo concerning Chinese bloggers, it's exactly what I want to hear. While their competitors are saying "do no evil", Yahoo seems to be handing dissidents over to the authorities without hesitation.

I don't know if I'm quite there yet, but my hard-to-break habit of challenging the official line might be worth breaking if this kind of blogger-focused attitude from Yahoo continues like it has. It's at least very tempting with the war on terror and current levels of surveillance here in the west.

--
Reseed (sic) the astroturf!

Re:FIXED (1)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875550)

While their competitors are saying "do no evil", Yahoo seems to be handing dissidents over to the authorities without hesitation.

Uhh.. Not to nit-pick... ok, yes, to nit-pick (sorry!), I think Yahoo's competitors are saying "Don't be evil" [google.com] not "Do no evil".

You're not the only one making this mistake [googlefight.com] .

Re:FIXED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875568)

Did you ever try to understand what it means to a company when it gets such requests? Do you honestly think they just up and hand in any information that is requested?

I think you are in need of a horizon broadening.

Re:How refreshing! (1)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875990)

While their competitors are saying "do no evil", Yahoo seems to be living it.

Need I remind you about the X10 popups? That caused me to switch my home page over to Google and have never, ever looked back.

Perhaps Yahoo is just playing catchup to google with crap like search.yahoo.com and now this. Seems like they are no longer innovating but they are just copying.

Seen their new Mail client? Fully Ajax driven. Hmmm. Gmail anyone?

Now Ruby! (1, Interesting)

BigTunaCan (812319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874565)

I think this very cool. I hope that this means that a Ruby version is on the horizon!

Re:Now Ruby! (1)

Slaimus (697294) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874810)

The whole point of a web service is that it is language-neutral. There is nothing preventing you from using Ruby or any other language that can take advantage of web services. Just look at the WSDL and make use of it.

Yawn. (2, Funny)

JoeyLemur (10451) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874580)

Wake me when they create a Ruby/Rails section.

Guido! Let my whitespace go!

Re:Yawn. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874591)

> Wake me when they create a Ruby/Rails section.

Snakes and a Train?

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875456)

We got motherfuckin snakes!

Re:Yawn. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874623)

Wake me when people shut the fuck up about Ruby/Rails.

Re:Yawn. (1, Funny)

thryllkill (52874) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874632)

I think you might be in for a looooooong sleep there buddy.

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874749)

Ruby is smalltalk without the JIT, many people like ruby. Rails is a crappy web development framework that lets people build dull cookie-cutter apps. Frameworks are just a fad, eventually the few worthwhile functions will become part of the std lib for every web development language. Pick one of the following:

Abstraction || Versatility

Re:Yawn. (1)

Black Perl (12686) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876490)

Pick one of the following:

Abstraction || Versatility

That's what I thought too. I was very skeptical until I actually started learning rails. I now see why it is getting very popular, because it takes advantage of some of the unique aspects of Ruby to blur that dividing line. It actually provides both abstraction and versatility. You get a lot of help out of the box or through an increasing number of plugins, but there are also convenient hooks to customize apps in pretty much any way you want.

Whitespace (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874893)

I know everybody gets hung up on the whitespace thing when they look at Python. But you know what? Once you start actually coding in it for any significant amount of time, it's not a big deal. When you first start, I know you expect it to be really annoying, but that simply doesn't turn out to be the case. The supposed problem evaporates.

Every time you hear anybody moan about Python's significant whitespace, ask them how long they've spent actually writing Python. You'll see the same thing as I do - that virtually everybody complaining has never given Python a chance, and that virtually everybody who has given Python a chance has realised that the significant whitespace isn't a big deal.

Re:Whitespace (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875757)

That's true. Once you use Python for a significant amount of time, you find that there are far more annoying aspects of the language than significant whitespace.

Re:Whitespace (1)

Peaker (72084) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877320)

Like what?

Re:Whitespace (2, Informative)

bhaberman (898289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15878459)

No lambdas, no ternary operator (yes I know, not pythonic), no switch statement (think Ruby, not C++), scoping rules are wrong (for example, list comprehensions leak variables - C++ for loops don't!).

Underscores! __init__ __new__ __getattr__ __setattr__ __len__ __getitem__ . . . .

range(1,5) = [1, 2, 3, 4]

The list goes on and on and on and on and on. Python has an incredible number of infuriating misfeatures for such a useful language.

Python sort of pretends to be a functional language, and you can do a lot of functional-style things in python, but even Perl is much better at doing these things than Python.

My favorite part of Python is the whitespace rule! The way I see it, you're indenting your program anyways, so braces are just redundant. It makes Python code quite beautiful and virtually eliminates unreadable code. In fact, Python is just a wonderful language to write in in general because its design enforces good programming practices and makes it easy to produce incredibly maintainable programs. But sometimes these features (read limitations, and lots of them) are quite frustrating. Yes, Guido, map and filter suck, but only because Python lambdas suck. And nested list comprehensions look awful. And sometimes you really do want a one-liner.

My three favorite languages now are Perl, Python, and Haskell. Perl because it is useful, even though it is a terrible language (Perl 6 is awesome though). Python because it is wonderfully easy to code in. Haskell because it is beautiful and makes my head hurt. Incidentally, Haskell also relies on whitespace, which I guess means that meaningful whitespace is officially a Good Thing, as defined by leading computer scientists.

The interesting thing I think is that Ruby, though much cleaner than Python and much more expressive, is much much harder for me to read. I don't like the mix of pure OO and functional style so much either. It seems like a wonderful language, but once Perl 6 comes out I can't really see it being so relevant.

Re:Whitespace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875928)

Uh ... reading down so far, no one even brought up the whitespace thing. It really doesn't need pre-emptive defense anymore.

Re:Whitespace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15876844)

Er, read again. The comment I'm replying to said "Guido! Let my whitespace go!".

Re:Yawn. (1)

twocents (310492) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874960)

Ughhh, so you're touting a model-view-controller type of Web development framework and yet you need a tutorial from Yahoo in order to tie into neutral services?

Why don't you write a Rails/Yahoo API tutorial?

Is Python created by a religious person? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874633)

I'm so disappointed to find out about Perl and Ruby. As an atheist, I'd like to stick to a language created by an atheist.

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (-1, Offtopic)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874676)

I'm so disappointed to find out about Perl and Ruby. As an atheist, I'd like to stick to a language created by an atheist.

Just goes to show that athiesm is a religion: one, the firm belief that they know the truth and everyone else is deluded; and two, as exemplified in this message, the anti-communal system whereby great concepts and great inventions are spurned simply for the different viewpoints of their inventors.

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875610)

The guy is joking, trolling, or an idiot. In any of these cases, his opinion has no bearing on atheism and it certainly does not transform atheism into a religion.

I suspect he was joking, because honestly, who says things like the GP did?

(also an atheist).

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (2, Funny)

abigor (540274) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874734)

You're in luck! Here's a quote from Guido: "Maybe my spiritual beliefs shine through here -- I'm a convinced atheist."

I don't know anything about Ruby's creator, but Larry Wall has always creeped me out too. I sure was happy when Python came along - a sensible language created by a logical Dutchman.

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15876354)

OK, I'll bite. What about Larry Wall has creeped you out? He might have mentioned his religious beliefs, but I don't think he's been pushy about anything. As a matter of fact, it seems to me the philosophy behind perl seems to be avoiding pushiness even if it means going to questionable extremes. I guess people like you who think everyone should think like you creep me out, thus my putting this in as an anonymous coward.

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876448)

Where precisely did I say I think everyone should think like me? I think you have some anger issues to work out. A reading comprehension class might help too, as would a sense of humour.

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (1)

bhaberman (898289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15878477)

I don't know, maybe the fact that for Perl 6 he released a bunch of Apocalypses. Apparently these are "revelations" and not "the end of the world." I suppose Larry Wall is God. Or His Prophet.

On the other hand, perhaps Larry IS God . . .

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (3, Interesting)

swartze (668002) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875903)

As an atheist, I'd like to stick to a language created by an atheist
Wow, That's quite a religious conviction you've got there.

Is slashdot created by a religious person? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15877167)

He picks forums the same way.

Hard to do if you are a GNU user (4, Funny)

amightywind (691887) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875955)

As an atheist, I'd like to stick to a language created by an atheist.

You are narrowing your options considering who [stallman.org] who developed the initial versions of GCC.

Re:Is Python created by a religious person? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15876409)

What the...? I didn't know English was created by an atheist. If not, I guess you'll just have to shut up.

(Disclaimer: this is not aimed at atheists.)

Howto (3, Informative)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874651)

Furthermore, unlike their previous offerings, they have released little new code here. The only code they have released is an API to their search engine. The rest seem to be HOWTOs on how to python to access their services.

Still good info though. Thanks

OMG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15874698)

Launch...?

Python....?

....Snakes on a Plane!!!

Product Placement (1)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874850)

The great and mighty Anonymous wrote:
Launch...?
Python....?
Snakes on a Plane!!!


Yep, it's another Product Placement deal. Pretty shameless -- all the searches shown in the movie start at yahoo.com, and yahoo.com plugs the movie right down to the programmer level. Pitiful.

Value of their feeds? (3, Interesting)

halosfan (691623) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874709)

While browsing through this, I noticed the following in ther Weather RSS feed page:

The feeds are provided free of charge for use by individuals and non-profit organizations for personal, non-commercial uses.

and then

Yahoo! also reserves the right to require you to cease distributing these feeds at any time for any reason.

So, while it's cool and all, is there any value to using their weather RSS feed (and I assume it's similar with other services), beyond my ability to play with them? I mean, even I'm not making any money off it, presumably, if I put the effort in accessing those feeds, I expect them to be available to me in the future? Or do they provide a paid-for version for this?

Re:Value of their feeds? (1)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874732)

Yahoo! also reserves the right to require you to cease distributing these feeds at any time for any reason.
So, while it's cool and all, is there any value to using their weather RSS feed (and I assume it's similar with other services), beyond my ability to play with them? I mean, even I'm not making any money off it, presumably, if I put the effort in accessing those feeds, I expect them to be available to me in the future? Or do they provide a paid-for version for this?

I would imagine that its just cover-your-ass legalese on their part but I could be wrong. I wouldn't not use the feeds based on the extremely off chance that they would stop letting you use them.

Re:Value of their feeds? (3, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#15874835)

I expect them to be available to me in the future
Why? It's their service, they could stop it or move it to a pay service at any time. Guess what, anyone providing a free service could do that even (gasp) Google. They could make GMail a pay service tomorrow if they felt like it.

Your expectations seem to be ever so slightly unrealistic.

Re:Value of their feeds? (1)

halosfan (691623) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875042)

I didn't say anywhere I want them to provide their service to me for free. If it makes it easier to understand, assume I'm willing to pay money to subscribe to this service in exchange to the guarantee that it would be available to me for a year. Can I do that? Or all they provide is the free version that they can discontinue at any time for any reason?

Re:Value of their feeds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875642)

That's a question best posed to Yahoo! themselves, not on a public message board. I bet you could work out an arrangement with Yahoo! to use their services on a more guaranteed basis for a fee. Why not contact Yahoo! directly?

Great, and good packages (4, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875030)

Not only did they release a nice guide, but the guide is actually good: while the first XML library they talk about in XML parsing is xml.dom.minidom, they also explain how to use the XML API with effbot's ElementTree (and link to both ElementTree and cElementTree), which is more than likely the best Python XML library. And the recommend UFP (Universal Feed Parser) for RSS parsing.

The worst thing you can say about them is that they did their homework, kudos to the Yahoo guys.

Re:Great, and good packages (1)

ChowyChow (149961) | more than 7 years ago | (#15875905)

Not only that, but they chose to use simplejson which is superior and under a free-er license than the library json-py.

*applaudes yahoo*

Re:Great, and good packages (1)

mshiltonj (220311) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876953)

Not only did they release a nice guide, but the guide is actually good:

Not only is your sentence redundant, but your sentence is actually redundant.

For us lesser mortals (non-developers?) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15875138)

Does this make Yahoo! a friend of Open Source?

Or would it be premature of me to exclaim ...ahem...Yahoo!?

Snakes are naturally quiet (2, Interesting)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876013)

I'm just glad they did this ahead of any Ruby foray. Online, all I hear anymore is loud rowdy Ruby peope and anti-Python people, some of whom are the same. At the bookstore, I easily see two times more Python books than Ruby. This tells me that despite the online hype, there's still a lot of quiet interest in Python and it isn't that Ruby or anything else is pushing us aside, it's that we're not very vociferous.

Which is fine with me. As long as Yahoo and other outlets keep that in mind that is. Python is not dead no matter what some people want to believe from the SNR.

Re:Snakes are naturally quiet (1)

carlivar (119811) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876352)

Ruby on Rails is only at v1.1. Thus the lack of books. When browsing Amazon however it seems like there are several scheduled to be released this fall.

Re:Snakes are naturally quiet (2, Informative)

abigor (540274) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876410)

Python is used commercially all over the place. My friend bought Civilization IV, and I was astounded to see it supports game modifications via Python. Meanwhile, I read an interview with the guy behind PyQt, the Python bindings for Trolltech's Qt library, and he said he has over 200 commercial users - including Disney, Pixar, and Industrial Light and Magic. All of these companies use Python and Qt, an extremely powerful app development environment if I've ever seen one. It seems like a natural match.

So the reason you don't hear Python hype is because the language simply doesn't need it. Ruby hasn't "arrived" yet, so its supporters are more vocal. It's all very similar to desktop Linux.

Re:Snakes are naturally quiet (1)

DeathPenguin (449875) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876666)

No doubt there's still a lot of room for Python, but since you brought up the bookstore metric: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/12/ruby_boo k_sales_surpass_python.html [oreilly.com]

Re:Snakes are naturally quiet (1)

Senzei (791599) | more than 7 years ago | (#15877287)

In the interest of being fair, Ruby is the current hype language and hasn't had much in the way of books until recently, of course book sales are going to be way up. I would expect them to die down a bit as the language reaches whatever natural saturation level it is going to hit.

I also am having a hard time recalling any good OReilly Python books that came out recently. That may have something to do with this as well.

Excellent news (1)

DrGalaxy (89127) | more than 7 years ago | (#15876915)

This page mainly demonstrates how to take advantage of Yahoo's APIs with Python. I think that the engineers and managers at Yahoo must be paying attention to the competative edge in productivity that Python can offer. It really is an all purpose programming tool that works well in many niches.

Commercial use of Yahoo Developer components.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15878286)

What is the point if these components cannot be re-used for building commercial applications.
Would'nt be yahoo better off to have their components used by true application developers. Its rather
unfortunate that they are entirely missing out on an opportunity to hookup developers use these
for real, make the components stronger. And have thousands of apps having the look and feel of Yahoo.
Iam sure they can easily have small hooks into their revenue generating services.
http://developer.yahoo.com/usagePolicy/#uses [yahoo.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...