Noob in Python. Problem with fairly simple test case

Rick Johnson rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com
Sat Jul 18 23:12:16 CEST 2015


On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 3:39:02 PM UTC-5, Laura Creighton wrote:
> I think kivy is doing a very nice job of python-on-the-mobile.
> Have you looked?  Please do not rant at me, just tell me what you
> think.

Hello Laura,

I'm not sure if you're replying to me (as there is no quoted
context) but since you mentioned "rant" i "suppose" that you 
could be referring be me? I mean, i don't know what gave you 
the impression that i would rant at anyone? But don't worry 
dear, i've always self-censored my rants when females are 
listening -- oops, gonna get some flac for that comment! O:-)

First off. I don't remember seeing you here before. So allow 
me to say that having a female presence in this group is quite
refreshing. I hope you continue to participate!

Also, I have a lot to say on this subject, and most of what
i say below is intended as a "general response", so please 
don't take any of my words as a personal attack. Thanks.

============================================================
 Regarding Kivy
============================================================

I was not aware of this project until you mentioned it.
However, i'm skeptical because: (1) it will suffer from 
latency issues, especially on the mobile platforms, and (2) 
but even if not, i feel projects like this are only 
encouraging the stagnation of our evolution towards 
multi-device compatibility.

============================================================
 The road to enlightenment is paved with introspection
============================================================

For the last few decades we have been consumed with the task
of bringing multi-platform-ism to every language or API or
software or whatever. And this was a noble pursuit indeed!

HOWEVER,

We are now moving into a new age. Not of cross-platform-ism
(where we want to write code *ONCE* and have it run on
Linux, Windows, and Mac) but were we want to write code
*ONCE* and have it run on a desktop, or a notebook, or a
phone, or a watch, or a refrigerator, or even a HUD in our 
spaceship!

I believe it's high time that we move away from religious
ideologies codified in "selfish syntaxes" and "selfish
interfaces". 

Because, we seek out these segregating policies just so we 
can say "hey, we're different", when in reality, we're
all the same underneath.

For example: printing to stdout is printing to stdout -> no
matter what syntax you choose to use. Likewise, iterating
over a collection of items, or creating an object that
implements the OOP paradigm, or writing a stream into a
storage medium -> the fundamentals of these concepts do not
change simply by plastering them with selfish identities.
Neither is the concept of a GUI window any different if that
window was created in Windows, Linux, or Mac.

I could provide example after example (ad nauseum) of how
we're creating these selfish syntaxes and selfish
interface, but i think you get the point.

This "need to fulfill" the underlying selfish desires that
we, as humans harbor, is preventing us (as programmers,
software engineers, hardware producers, and most importantly
-> end users) from reaching computing Nirvana. No programmer
should ever need to re-write the same code numerous times so
that it can run on multiple devices.  We, are injecting
needless superfluity into this system. And for no more
reason than our need to fulfill selfish desires!

Why are we *NOT* working together to create a single, linear,
and scaleable system of producing software, A system that
compiles all the best ideas, and throws the remainder into
the refuse bin of history.

The only system i've seen that has made *ANY* attempt  (as
feeble as it may be) is DHTML. But even with it's modern
look and feel, it lacks the necessary hooks into the diverse
platforms to get any "real work" done. However, utilizing
the Trojan horse of "browser ubiquity", and expanding on it,
may be much less work than rebuilding the entire system from
the ground up (something to ponder...)

Most of what we're doing, in the programming language design
field, is fighting over who's version of "superficial CSS"
is going to be the official version. Our partisan efforts
are merely adolescent accessorizing. But we lack the
introspective ability to notice the vanity and futility of 
our efforts.

If you want to know why i rant so much, it's because i'm
both saddened and angry that we waste our time on these
petty battles. When, in fact, we could achieve greatness by
working towards a common goal.

============================================================
 Utopia's eventually fail Rick!
============================================================

I'm aware of that! I'm aware that "conflict" is the
invisible force that breathes life into the cogs of
evolution. But your superficial understanding of my proposal
is not a failure of my proposal. ON THE CONTRARY!

For example. We can *ALL* remember how every cell phone
manufacture had their own selfish implementation of a
charging port. Heck, every time you bought a new phone, you
would be forced to buy a corresponding charger. Did not
matter that your old changer was still working fine, or if
the power output was exactly the same. NOPE! If the port did
not match the plug, then you were screwed -- which means you
were screwed 99% of the time!

Heck, i have dozens of old chargers in my closet. Each one
either has a different plug, or a different power output. And 
landfills are seething with them.

Thankfully, at some point, most manufacturers switched to
micro USB (possibly from governmental regulation???) and the
charging routine of many cell phone users have been joyful
since. 

*NOW*, i can borrow a friends charger if my battery level
becomes low. *NOW*, i can buy a charger from *ANY*
manufacture. This is freedom. And this is how we remove
superfluously injected selfishness from our systems!

Which is the very point i'm trying to make about our multi-
device problem. We have willfully injected superfluity into
our system of software creation, and as a result, we are
wasting precious time fitting square blocks into round holes
when we would could spend that time solving newer, more
complex problems. Changing the world <-> instead of chewing
the cud!

I'm not sure if an authority will need to step in and
regulate this blatant and infantile selfishness, or if we,
as active members, and thus, guilty by association, will
take the necessary steps to move ourselves towards the
linear path to software engineering Nirvana.

A system that is designed from the ground up to produce the
best software, in the least amount of time. A system that
not only rewards creativity, productivity, and pragmatic
necessity, but a system that is designed to foster it; to
cradle it; to nurture it. That is my dream. And the status
quo is our collective nightmare!




More information about the Python-list mailing list