Comments for Lukas' Weblog http://lukas-prokop.at/blog tail -f /var/log/web Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:00:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on The top 10 signs you’re a computer scientist by meisterluk http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/12/the-top-10-signs-youre-a-computer-scientist/#comment-512 meisterluk Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:00:58 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2190#comment-512 @Ax Yeah, I have also thought of that. However, I did not want to leave out the "10<sub>2</sub>" argument and keep the list to 10 elements ;-) @Nathan Yes, you are right. That's nicer :-) → fixed @Ax Yeah, I have also thought of that. However, I did not want to leave out the “102” argument and keep the list to 10 elements ;-)
@Nathan Yes, you are right. That’s nicer :-) → fixed

]]> Comment on The top 10 signs you’re a computer scientist by Nathan http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/12/the-top-10-signs-youre-a-computer-scientist/#comment-509 Nathan Sun, 04 Dec 2011 03:55:04 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2190#comment-509 I expected a list with 10<sub>2</sub> elements. I expected a list with 102 elements.

]]> Comment on The top 10 signs you’re a computer scientist by Ax http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/12/the-top-10-signs-youre-a-computer-scientist/#comment-506 Ax Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:42:28 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2190#comment-506 I was expecting the list to use a zero-based index. I was expecting the list to use a zero-based index.

]]> Comment on Gastronomy #fail by Frédéric Gierlinger http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/08/gastronomy-fail/#comment-474 Frédéric Gierlinger Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:50:31 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2034#comment-474 It is the same as with the "ping" command. If a ping fails, you cannot know if there is a problem with the sender or with the receiver or even both. So probably the gastronomy does not fail,mbut the sender? :P BTW nice new blog design (only saw it now because I got a little lazy reading your blog) It is the same as with the “ping” command. If a ping fails, you cannot know if there is a problem with the sender or with the receiver or even both. So probably the gastronomy does not fail,mbut the sender? :P

BTW nice new blog design (only saw it now because I got a little lazy reading your blog)

]]> Comment on Python wants to become one-based? by MeisterLuk http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/09/python-wants-to-become-one-based/#comment-439 MeisterLuk Mon, 12 Sep 2011 22:48:35 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2054#comment-439 @karl well, the "zeroth" number is exactly what we consider to be the "first" number by convention. In an ordered list of numbers like (7, 8, 9), we call 7 to be the "first" number, but with the rise of popularity of the C programming language "zero" became the actual "first" number by convention. In natural languages, we keep on naming it the "first" number. As most of the people pointed out, there are no major mathematical explanations. As far as "range(min, max) vs range(include, exclude)" is concerned, I think the latter is more handy than the first. Your mentioned example "range(1, len(seq))" is one of those. But we have to define some parameters: Where do we use the range? For iteration? For defining an abstract slicing object? For iteration like "for (i=0; i<3; i++)" I always prefer to use "<" and an (incremented max)-value condition. For slicing, it really does not matter. In case of python, you generally need such a definition, if you have a length in mind; nothing else (python only has foreach loops). If you have to think of a starting and ending index, you will have to convert your internal representation in your brain of the range to indizes. It's more comfortable to just write "from 0 to length". In context of included/excluded, I also enjoyed Tim Peter's articles. mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-October/637704.html (sorry, for the missing link. I hate Wordpress so much for that problem) You are absolutely right. Its a matter of convention and it's most important to be consistent. @karl well, the “zeroth” number is exactly what we consider to be the “first” number by convention. In an ordered list of numbers like (7, 8, 9), we call 7 to be the “first” number, but with the rise of popularity of the C programming language “zero” became the actual “first” number by convention. In natural languages, we keep on naming it the “first” number.

As most of the people pointed out, there are no major mathematical explanations.

As far as “range(min, max) vs range(include, exclude)” is concerned, I think the latter is more handy than the first. Your mentioned example “range(1, len(seq))” is one of those. But we have to define some parameters: Where do we use the range? For iteration? For defining an abstract slicing object? For iteration like “for (i=0; i<3; i++)” I always prefer to use “<” and an (incremented max)-value condition. For slicing, it really does not matter. In case of python, you generally need such a definition, if you have a length in mind; nothing else (python only has foreach loops). If you have to think of a starting and ending index, you will have to convert your internal representation in your brain of the range to indizes. It’s more comfortable to just write “from 0 to length”.

In context of included/excluded, I also enjoyed Tim Peter’s articles.

mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2000-October/637704.html
(sorry, for the missing link. I hate WordPress so much for that problem)

You are absolutely right. Its a matter of convention and it’s most important to be consistent.

]]> Comment on Python wants to become one-based? by Karl http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/09/python-wants-to-become-one-based/#comment-438 Karl Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:13:11 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2054#comment-438 You're probably right with those mathematical reasons. Consistency is also important I agree. But from usability point of view: what the hell is a "zeroth" number? There is no such thing. And people starting to program are puzzled about the index "0" for the first item, the item number *one*. This *is* also some kind of inconsistency. If a language is one-based, I personally find "range(1, len(seq))" *including* the last index perfectly intuitively. I never got used to those weird index calculations where "range(x,y)" does *not* include y: I wrote "y" in the second parameter! Why the hell should the result *not* include "y" as well? So there are reasons for the current situation. But there are also perfectly logical reasons for another situation. This is a matter of convention. You’re probably right with those mathematical reasons. Consistency is also important I agree.

But from usability point of view: what the hell is a “zeroth” number? There is no such thing. And people starting to program are puzzled about the index “0″ for the first item, the item number *one*. This *is* also some kind of inconsistency.

If a language is one-based, I personally find “range(1, len(seq))” *including* the last index perfectly intuitively. I never got used to those weird index calculations where “range(x,y)” does *not* include y: I wrote “y” in the second parameter! Why the hell should the result *not* include “y” as well?

So there are reasons for the current situation. But there are also perfectly logical reasons for another situation. This is a matter of convention.

]]> Comment on Python wants to become one-based? by MeisterLuk http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/09/python-wants-to-become-one-based/#comment-437 MeisterLuk Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:57:35 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2054#comment-437 @nodh I am pretty sure you are right. Guido pointed out that he does not want another backwards incompatible release. For me, I wanted to point out why one-based python would be bad. @nodh I am pretty sure you are right. Guido pointed out that he does not want another backwards incompatible release. For me, I wanted to point out why one-based python would be bad.

]]> Comment on Python wants to become one-based? by nodh http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/09/python-wants-to-become-one-based/#comment-436 nodh Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:20:04 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=2054#comment-436 I think thats a joke. I think thats a joke.

]]> Comment on Mein PHP-Denken by Lukas’ Weblog » Blog Archive » Programming criticism http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2008/08/mein-php-denken/#comment-169 Lukas’ Weblog » Blog Archive » Programming criticism Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:44:46 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=364#comment-169 [...] Sämtliche aktuelle Kritik konnte wiederlegt werden. Aber hat jemand eine Lösung für eine der Fragen? Update: mitsuhiko hat einen genialen Beitrag zu [...] [...] Sämtliche aktuelle Kritik konnte wiederlegt werden. Aber hat jemand eine Lösung für eine der Fragen? Update: mitsuhiko hat einen genialen Beitrag zu [...]

]]> Comment on The Big Bang Theory Relationship Diagram by MeisterLuk http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/2011/06/the-big-bang-theory-relationship-diagram/#comment-434 MeisterLuk Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:09:17 +0000 http://lukas-prokop.at/blog/?p=1967#comment-434 @flo thx, great work :-) @flo thx, great work :-)

]]>