PyPornography was: Re: Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Christos Georgiou]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:05:40 -0500, rumours say that Steve Holden
<steve at holdenweb.com> might have written:

>Chris Mellon wrote:
>[...]
>> Torstens definition isn't useful for quantifying a difference between
>> interpeted and compiled - it's a rough sort of feel-test. It's like
>> how much of a naked body you can expose before before it changes from
>> art to pornography - it's not something that is easily quantified.
>> 
>[...]

>Possibly, but if your aim is exposing as much flesh as possible without 
>being labeled pornography I think I'd conclude you were in the 
>pornography business from the start, albeit masquerading as an "art dealer".

The difference between art and pornography, as I perceive it, is that you
don't have to think about it when you see pornography.  You can even turn
off the audio in cinematographic/video pornography and still the message
comes through (in the vague lines of "jerk off along").

So, in pornography there's no interpretation step involved; therefore, by
pure logic, all "compiled to machine code" languages should be looked down
upon as pornographic, and Python is art.  QED.


PS You (the READER) are licensed to substitute other "non compiled to
machine code" languages for Python (the PROGRAM) in the previous paragraph,
just do it outside comp.lang.python (the COMPANY).  We don't care what you
do late at night with *your* object of desire, whatever that may be, since
it's not Python.
-- 
TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best.
"Dear Paul,
please stop spamming us."
The Corinthians