Mailman 3 September 2017 - Edu-sig

a short essay about programming
by kirby urner Dec. 8, 2022

Dec. 8, 2022

A common "error" (not too serious) that I see in beginning Python (and no doubt other languages, but Python is the one I'm teaching), is having a while condition that appears to put a lid on things, but then the flow all leaks away through break statements, such that the "front door" condition is never revisited. while guess != secret: guess = int(input("Guess?: ") if guess == secret: print("You guessed it!") break else: print("Nope, try again...") What's messed up about the above code is you never really go back to the top in the case where you'd get to leave. Rather, you exit by the back door, through break. So in that case, wouldn't have been simpler and more elegant, even more "correct" (dare I say it) to have gone: while True: # no ifs ands or buts guess = int(input("Guess?: ") if guess == secret: print("You guessed it!") break else: print("Nope, try again...") I see lots of heads nodding, and that could be the end of the matter, but then a next question arises: wouldn't this also be a more correct solution?: while guess != secret: guess = int(input("Guess?: ") if guess == secret: print("You guessed it!") continue # instead of break else: print("Nope, try again...") We're back to having a variable while condition, not a boolean constant, but this time we actually exit by means of it, thanks to continue or... while guess != secret: guess = int(input("Guess?: ") if guess == secret: print("You guessed it!") else: print("Nope, try again...") ... thanks to no continue. This last one is getting a thumbs up, but then I'd pause here and say "continue" can be easier on the eyes. It's unambiguous where it takes you, in contrast to having to scan on down the gauntlet, looking for possibly other open doors. "What happens next" should not require scanning ahead too far. Help us not to get lost. Be a civic-minded coder. I'm thinking of a programming style that advises two things: (a) if you use a while condition that's variable, that's expected to change, then your goal should be to always exit because of that, i.e. that should be your only exit point. Even if some other criterion suggests exiting, you have the option to flip that "lid" at the top, to crack that front door, and bounce the ball out. (b) which is why 'continue' is your friend. You are showing the user where your 'break' statements are, except you don't use "break" statements, as you've given a non-constant condition, and your aim is to make that your ONLY exit point. In short: never use break to exit a while loop unless your condition is while True. Instead, always flip the condition and exit through the font door. However, as soon as I make that rule I can think of good reasons to break it. The other programmers in the room are shaking their heads. Won't we lose information, needed elsewhere in the program, if we "artificially" force a True condition to False. Aren't we, in effect, lying? That concern could be addressed. Keep all the info true, just treat the "lid condition" (it "keeps a lid on it") as a flag. Go ahead and remember the user's guess. allowed = 5 tries = 1 exit = False while not exit: # no other way out guess = int(input("Guess?: ") if guess == secret: print("You guessed it!") exit = True # instead of break continue print("Nope, try again...") tries += 1 if tries == allowed: print("You've maxed out") exit = True continue I think we all understand the main issue: writing reader-friendly code, and rules for doing so. There's something comforting about approaching a while loop and knowing its not a leaky sieve, riddled with back doors, maybe even an exit( ) time bomb. But in the recursion world we want a minimum of two exits usually: when another round is called for versus when we've "hit bottom". Can we have it both ways? Conclusions: Lets not be too hasty with rules of thumb and: Lets keep the reader in mind when writing code. Just because the interpreter knows to compute the flow unambiguously, doesn't mean all ways of writing it are equally reader-friendly. What may seem a gratuitous gesture, an unnecessary flourish, may actually promote reader comprehension of your code, and that should be a goal as much as satisfying the interpreter. Kirby

8 17

MineCraft with Python
by Jurgis Pralgauskis Dec. 3, 2022

Dec. 3, 2022

Hi, intro: many kids like MineCraft :) probably you know/heared of MineCraft Pi https://www.raspberrypi.org/learning/getting-started-with-minecraft-pi/ But there seems to be Py for real MC http://coderdojotc.readthedocs.io/projects/python-minecraft/en/latest/ http://www.instructables.com/id/Python-coding-for-Minecraft/ PS.: a nice article (from js4MC world) https://github.com/walterhiggins/ScriptCraft/blob/master/docs/YoungPersonsG… -- Jurgis Pralgauskis tel: 8-616 77613; Don't worry, be happy and make things better ;) http://galvosukykla.lt

6 6

turtle coordinates: Y increase downards - as in most graphics API?
by Jurgis Pralgauskis July 2, 2018

July 2, 2018

Hi, usually in computer graphics Y is counted to increase downwards. I casn do it with: setworldcoordinates(0, 400, 600, 0) but then, "right(..)" turns to the left :/ I could swap: right, left = left, right but on errror I get a bit misleading message >>> right() Traceback (most recent call last): File "<pyshell#10>", line 1, in <module> right() TypeError: left() takes exactly 1 argument (0 given) I thought to make this hack for kids, so better clearer error msgs... Any Ideas? Thanks :) -- Jurgis Pralgauskis tel: 8-616 77613; Don't worry, be happy and make things better ;) http://galvosukykla.lt

6 20

the SageMath saga: at the front lines in open source
by kirby urner Sept. 24, 2017

Sept. 24, 2017

I'm finally tuning in the saga of SageMath, with William Stein at the center: https://youtu.be/6eIoYMB_0Xc The cited Youtube isn't the most recent of his Youtube presentations, but provides a fascinating glimpse into the economic forces swirling around open source in this next iteration / generation. SageMath is GPL but without a company behind it, a business structure, what will become of it? Fast forward and said company exists, along with a grant from the EU. Then what? On the Continuum Analytics side: Jupyter Notebooks, likewise super-worthy and deserving of committed developers who don't feel pressured to move on. Mostly foundation funded. One might think colleges and universities would see it in their common interest to develop a liberal commons around such open source toolery. What better way to attract top notch faculty? One might also see a company like Google using the "half time" model and paying employees, in some cases already versed in SageMath internals from grad school, to code in support of these projects from which we all benefit. That's a way of earning Good Will, in older economics texts an actual line item the board members paid attention to. It's a way of branding. As Stein sees it, universities systematically undervalue mathematicians who contribute to the commons in the form of software. Taking a page from Jared Diamond ('How Civilizations Fail'), this is how we shoot ourselves in the foot, by clinging to habits and stereotypes. Or do we break through to a next level? Kirby PS: I consider SageMath part of the Python ecosystem so no worries discussing it here (we have already). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SageMath

1 0

some new open source Python writing (Jupyter Notebooks)
by kirby urner Sept. 4, 2017

Sept. 4, 2017

3 9