[Tutor] Tutor Digest, Vol 87, Issue 114

David Merrick merrickdav at gmail.com
Sat May 28 22:08:48 CEST 2011


As a new user of Pytrhon and previous user of Java,C(+),Php. There is very
little difference. In some cases Python might be slower but I don't think it
would mnake that much difference. The major differnce is the syntax of how
you write and layout your code.

Chreers Dave

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 10:00 PM, <tutor-request at python.org> wrote:

> Send Tutor mailing list submissions to
>        tutor at python.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        tutor-request at python.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        tutor-owner at python.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tutor digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Python Interview Questions.. (Steven D'Aprano)
>   2. Re: Python Interview Questions.. (Marc Tompkins)
>   3. Re: Python Interview Questions.. (Lisi)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 14:25:45 +1000
> From: Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>
> To: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] Python Interview Questions..
> Message-ID: <4DE07949.6040309 at pearwood.info>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Alan Gauld wrote:
> > "Walter Prins" <wprins at gmail.com> wrote
> >
> >>>> Java just isn't a hard enough language to separate great programmers
> >>>> from plodders (neither is Python, for that matter) because pointers
> >>>> and memory allocation are taken care of automagically.
> >>>
> >>> I fundamentally disagree with his stand on this.
> >>>
> >> Not sure what you're saying here Alan -- are you saying you consider
> Java
> >> "hard enough language to seperate great programmers from plodders"
> >
> > Yes, I'm saying the language just isn't that significant.
>
> Sorry Alan, you confuse me. Do you mean Java isn't that *insignificant*?
>
>
> >>>  When you're hiring programmers, (Joel says) you want people
> >>>> who understand what the computer is actually doing under
> >>>> all the chrome,
> >
> > Thats where I disagree, you might occasionally need a few
> > of those, but not often and not many.
>
> I think that depends on what you mean by "understand".
>
> If you mean, should all programmers be like Mel:
>
> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html
>
> then Hell No!!!
>
> But I do believe that all programmers should understand the limitations
> of the machines they're running on (in Python's case, there's a virtual
> machine plus the real one), or at least understand that those
> limitations exist, so they can avoid making silly mistakes or at least
> recognise it when they do so.
>
> I'm not talking about them knowing how to write assembly code, but
> little things like knowing why the recursive versions of factorial
> function and the Fibonacci sequence are so damn slow.
>
> This is often harder than it sounds in Python, because the C built-in
> functions are so fast compared to those written in pure Python that for
> any reasonable amount of data it often is faster to use a O(n**2)
> function using built-ins than O(n) code in pure Python.
>
>
>
> --
> Steven
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 22:32:03 -0700
> From: Marc Tompkins <marc.tompkins at gmail.com>
> To: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] Python Interview Questions..
> Message-ID: <BANLkTikpahwLvFVCj6pgZaoK5EEHC9Jd1A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info
> >wrote:
>
> > Not such a good analogy, since modern consumer goods are getting to the
> > point where they are almost unrepairable except by replacing the control
> > board. It often costs you *more* to fix a broken widget than to throw the
> > machine away and buy a new one, e.g. monitors, TVs, DVD players...
> >
>
> I kept going way, way too long with the dishwasher analogy, but the actual
> incident that was stuck in my mind was automotive: a few years ago, my
> brakes started pulsing whenever I tried to stop, and the brake light was
> constantly lit.  I took it to the dealership; they took a look, and said
> "You need a new anti-lock brake computer.  That'll be $1000."  That seemed
> a
> bit steep to me, so I took it to Midas Brake and Muffler.  They took a
> look,
> and said "You need a new right-front anti-lock brake sensor; that'll be
> $600."  That seemed more reasonable, but when you have two clocks that
> don't
> agree you should consult a third, so I went to my regular mechanic (where I
> should have started in the first place!)  He said "A stone from the road
> cut
> the wire from the right front sensor to the computer.  We spliced the wire,
> wrapped it in heat-shrink tubing and sealed it.  That'll be $15."
> Now, try to re-imagine my analogy with those three mechanics in the place
> of
> programmers.  Which one should I hire?
>
>
> > That's also often the case with computers unless you value your time very
> > low. In my day job, if I have the choice in paying one of my junior techs
> > more than 4 hours to diagnose a flaky piece of hardware, I'd rather just
> hit
> > it with a hammer and replace the likely suspects (memory, motherboard...
> > whatever is likely to be causing the symptoms). Obviously its a sliding
> > scale -- I don't replace a $14,000 server because a hard drive is broken,
> > but neither do I spend three days trying to be absolutely 100% sure that
> a
> > $60 power supply is flaky before replacing it.
> >
> > Coming back to programming, sometimes the right answer is to throw more
> > memory at a problem rather than to write better code. A GB of RAM costs,
> > what, $100? That's like what, 1-3 hours of developer time? If it takes
> you
> > three hours to lower your application's memory requirements by half a
> gig,
> > you might be throwing money away.
> >
>
> This approach may be acceptable for in-house development, or a case where
> you and three other people use your program.  When Microsoft and Apple
> adopt
> this philosophy, it makes me incredibly angry - multiply that $100 by all
> the computers running their crap software, and eventually it adds up to
> real
> money.  I truly think that one of the tragedies of modern software is that
> the developers at places like MS, Apple, Adobe, etc. get their computers
> replaced on a shorter lifecycle than most of the rest of us.  I mean,
> really
> - have you used Outlook or iTunes, or FSM help us Acrobat, recently?  Makes
> me want to open a vein.
>
> And that gets to the point I was trying to make.  I am ALL FOR hobbyist and
> part-time programming - I would not describe myself as a genius programmer,
> so it's a good thing that it's not my full-time job (although it's my
> favorite part of my job!)
> BUT:
> I damn well want geniuses, and nobody else, working on the software that I
> have to use to make my living.  It pisses me off beyond belief to have to
> use some Schlemiel's efforts when I'm trying to put food on my family.*
>  And
> that is why, if I were hiring developers, I would be strongly tempted to
> skip the resumes from Java schools (even if, FSM help me, my shop actually
> developed in Java) - there may very well be great programmers who went to
> those schools, but someone else can find them; I want the ones who've been
> pre-sifted for me.
>
>
> > That's partly why we program in Python: use a relatively heavyweight
> > language environment (at least compared to C or assembly) that allows us
> to
> > be 10-30 times as productive for the cost of 10 times slower code and
> twice
> > as much memory.
> >
>
> At no time have I advocated developing in assembler.   I think that
> programmers should Get their Stuff Done in the most efficient manner
> possible.  BUT:  if you work for me, I want you to have sprained your brain
> learning how the flippin' machine works.  Then, when you come to work for
> me, I will be ever-so happy to let you work in Python - because I know it's
> the best way to harness your talent.  But (although I love this list, and
> wish everybody on it well) I would never hire a programmer who had only
> ever
> used Python, even if I ran a Python shop.
>
> Full disclosure: I am currently cranky on the subject of crap software (and
> the crap programmers who produce it) because, in one of my non-Python gigs,
> I've been struggling to update some templates in an Electronic Health
> Record
> system (which shall remain nameless.)  The template editor was clearly
> written by a loosely-affiliated team of mental defectives, and it raises my
> blood pressure every time I get near it.  So I may be a little unreasonable
> on the subject of quality software...
>
> * pace G.W.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/attachments/20110527/417334c7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 08:20:19 +0100
> From: Lisi <lisi.reisz at gmail.com>
> To: tutor at python.org
> Subject: Re: [Tutor] Python Interview Questions..
> Message-ID: <201105280820.19889.lisi.reisz at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Saturday 28 May 2011 05:25:45 Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > >> Not sure what you're saying here Alan -- are you saying you consider
> > >> Java "hard enough language to seperate great programmers from
> plodders"
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm saying the language just isn't that significant.
> >
> > Sorry Alan, you confuse me. Do you mean Java isn't that *insignificant*?
>
> Surely he is saying that it doesn't make much difference to this which
> language you are using?
>
> Lisi
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tutor maillist  -  Tutor at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
>
>
> End of Tutor Digest, Vol 87, Issue 114
> **************************************
>



-- 
Dave Merrick

merrickdav at gmail.com

Ph   03 3423 121
Cell 027 3089 169
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/attachments/20110529/c40dd3b0/attachment.html>


More information about the Tutor mailing list