Slashback: Rocketry, Pythonation, Scoffing

Slashback tonight brings a few followups to recent Slashdot postings on the fate of model rocketry in the new, hypercautious America; a few Python gatherings for those who prefer that language to Perl; and a response from Los Alamos to recent claims of lax security. Enjoy!

Besides which, it's the hidden cameras that matter. An anonymous reader adds this followup to the story posted last month about Wired reporter Noah Shachtman's account of sneaking into classified areas at Los Alamos national Laboratory.

"In an email message to all Los Alamos National Laboratory employees, Pete Nanos, the current Director of LANL, responded with information suggesting that the Wired reporter who thought he had broken in to a 'top secret area' had in fact just crossed a cattle fence:

'The Wired reporter clearly did not enter a Laboratory security area. The Laboratory encompasses more than 40 square miles. The security force protects important assets within those boundaries but cannot -- and does not -- protect every square foot of property. Based on the article, it appears the reporter crossed a barbed-wire cattle fence, not a fence that protects a Los Alamos security area.
There is a small security area with several buildings (roughly 400 feet by 400 feet) near the driveway entrance to TA-33. That area is surrounded by a seven-foot-high chain-link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. A security guard is stationed inside that area seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Clearly, the reporter did not climb that fence.
There are several other buildings outside the security area that are locked for property protection interests. They have no security interests. There are several gates and fenced areas on the TA-33 site, which are there for safety access control, not security.
It's unlikely the reporter would be prosecuted for trespassing; the Laboratory does not have law enforcement authority to prosecute, and none of the proper authorities witnessed the trespass.'"

Perhaps we can have a celebrity deathmatch. hfastedge writes "Ok, now that 2 perl conferences have been mentioned, I've been brought over the edge. Python is a language that is just as old, and arguably better from: most importantly a uniform standard of readability (enforced by using whitespace to delimit blocks (instead of {}), by avoiding overuse of cryptic symbols, and by a culture that strives to keep innovations as "pythonic"), and a rich development community. Anyway, normally, there are Python events in Europe, and a trail at O'Reilly's OSCON. But now, there is a far cheaper event taking place on March 24-28 in Washington DC: http://python.org/pycon/.

Examples of Python in action: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7"

Fly up go phhhhhwwwtttpffffff .... MyNameIsFred writes "Slashdot recently discussed whether anti-terrorism laws would destroy model rocketry. The government has ruled, and the message is clear, "When it comes to the hobby of model rocketry, size does matter. And in this case, the magic number is 62.5 grams. That's the largest amount of propellant a single model rocket engine can have in it and still be exempt from a new set of federal rules that will go into effect May 24." What does this mean for the the big guys in model rocketry, who use engines larger than this?"

Comments

looks like a score...

[Anonymous Coward]

firstus postus for my niglets in captivity!

Go Iraq! Fuck those Yank bastards!

The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[elflet]

The space.com article cited was posted March 6; this posting from the National Association of Rocketry points out the BATF hasn't made it clear whether the regulations will apply to materials already on hand.

Also, this is part of a dispute that's been going on for years then be BATF decided to designate Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (the same fuel used in the Space Shuttle's SRBs) as an "explosive". The 62.5 gram limit was proposed as a compromise measure by the NAR to a flat-out banning of all APCP engines. This way, people could still enter into the higher-power forms of rocketry without dealing with the BATF's arcane regulations and uneven enforcement.

Then came the Homeland Security act and black powder (gunpowder, a/k/a "BP") engines were added to that list of "explosives", causing FedEx and UPS to ultimately refuse to carry them. There's still a bill pending in Congress to make a "technical correction" to remove black powder motors from that list. It's the subject of a phone and FAX compaign to garner support.

Would removing black powder from the 62.5 gram limit mean we see huge BP motors? Not likely, as the thrust/weight efficiency of BP is low enough not to make that a viable trade-off.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Model rocketry

1 - 62.5 grams doesn't lift a lot.

2 - this limit is for shipping to your home

from Rocketryonline.com:

"Emergency Revision to DOT-E 10996 Exemption Granted

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has just granted AeroTech an emergency revision
to DOT exemption DOT- E 10996 that allows the shipment of articles covered by the exemption
(certain rocket motors and reload kits normally classified as division 1.3C explosives) by cargo
aircraft, in addition to the previous authorized modes of transportation (motor vehicle and rail freight).
This revision gives manufacturers and dealers one more option of transportation in light of the
recent shipping consequences of the Homeland Security Act.

Eleven other entities are currently parties to DOT-E 10996.

An unexpected bonus of the revision is the DOT's decision to eliminate the 99 lb. net propellant
weight per vehicle restriction placed on previous versions of the exemption!

Many thanks to the DOT Exemptions Branch for granting the revision in a most expeditious manner!"

3 - storing or shipping larger quanitities of propellants( >62.5gms ) require(at least, there's likely more, but I never wanted to be a distributor, so...):

a - certification from the NAR or TRA(class 1, 2, 3)
this is simimilar to the pyrotechnic licence; you must pass a written test
and fly a "model" with propellant appropriate for that class under supervision, test/fly to gain each class
b - BATF LEUP(Low Explosive Users Permit)
c - BATF approved(inspected) Explosives Magazine

4 - AP is incorrectly classified as an explosive, AP burns(smokes) at normal(ground level or higher)
pressures; it is a propellant when you burn it in an enclosed space and build chamber pressure.

5 - there are more details to be found at:

http://www.nar.org
http://www.tripoli.org
http ://www.rrs.org
http://www.asesur.com/prs/
http:/ /www.rocketryonline.com
http://www.space-rockets. com/congress.html

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[Anonymous Coward]

greater than the limit might enable someone to make a shoulder-fired missile -- that may be why they put the limit there, so noone can shoot down a plane

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[The AtomicPunk]

I guess now you model rocketry guys know how it feels to be a gun owner.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[RodgerDodger]

Ah, but unless your model rocket is a GyroJet, it's not likely that a prepubescent child will use your rocket to kill another prepubescent child in the preschool play ground, is it?

(Heck, it's not likely even if your model rocket is a GyroJet)

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[namespan]

Last I heard, conventional firearms were getting the kid glove treatment from the intelligence and the DoD when it comes to terror -- we've got Total Information Awareness, but Ashcroft refuses to call on/link in gun ownership databases, presumably because of the 2nd ammendment or because of its sacred cow nature to his supporters.

This isn't totally without logic: you can kill a lot more people more quickly with explosives or an airliner than you can with conventional firearms. But firearm acquisition and use ought to be at least as closely monitored as library book usage.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't attempted to buy a firearm recently have you? If you had you would recognize the amount of paperwork involved (that the ATF Form 4472 is maintained as a permanent record for 20 years as a starter).

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[addaon]

Just buy them on the street. It's quicker, cheaper, and less regulated.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[mrdogi]

But firearm acquisition and use ought to be at least as closely monitored as library book usage.

"closely montored" as in many libraries deciding to not keep any record of who borrowed what?

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[pete-classic]

At the risk of provoking an invocation of Godwin's Law, please read the proud history of using gun registries as a means of implementing "public safety" before you become to enamored of the idea.

-Peter

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[namespan]

Gun registries don't kill gun ownership, governments do. There is not any clear line between a registry and seizure any more than there is a clear line between firearm ownership and unjust killings. That is to say: either one makes the other more possible, but in the end, it's a finger that pulls the trigger.

Not to mention that in any situation where the U.S. government had the will and power to begin seizing firearms, firearms would be useless as a tool of resistance, with or without a registry. Ask David Koresh.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[namespan]

Not personally. I go shootin' with friends who have, though. Yep. There's paperwork and records. That's a good thing. Thing is, Ashcroft is apparently afraid to use the info.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[pete-classic]

Gun registries don't kill gun ownership, governments do.

While this is clever and true it isn't the point.

Governments don't have rights, they have powers. Governments don't have any intrinsic right to not be deprived of powers. Conversely, citizens do have intrinsic rights, like a right to self defense. Therefore, and argument like "guns don't kill people, people do" is valid when discussing an individual right, but your argument is not a valid defense of a governmental power.

Not to mention that in any situation where the U.S. government had the will and power to begin seizing firearms, firearms would be useless as a tool of resistance, with or without a registry. Ask David Koresh.

I think your generalization of what happened at Mt. Carmel to be over-broad. You are correct as long as the government is able to convince "the people" that this is an isolated thing to protect them from an "evil" person. In this case it is only the "gun nuts" who are upset. (Witness that an agent of the US government can shoot a woman, armed only with an infant, dead with no public outcry.) OTOH, it is my opinion that a large percentage of LEOs and servicemen would "turn on their masters" so to speak in any radical oppression. Also consider that there are many times more armed citizens than there are LEOs and servicemen combined.

This is actually very relevant to my main point. A registry allows a government a much better opportunity to confiscate firearms quitely, and starting with the most "subversive" (a.k.a. "freedom loving") citizens. "Boiling the frog" as the saying goes.

Contrast this with a policy of confiscation without a registry. It can only be effectively implemented in ways that are repugnant to all of the citizenry. This is an advantage in the defense of freedom.

Finally, since I am way off topic anyway . . . it is important to understand that "instant background checks" and such amount to registries. That is why people who genuinely want to preserve our 2nd amendment rights are opposed to them. They are not a "harmless means of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" as their proponents would have you belive.

-Peter

PS: If any of this makes sense or is interesting to you please check out Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The are a fantastic organization and are well spoken proponents of ALL the Bill of Rights for ALL citizens.

-P

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[Tassach]

The reason Asscroft and the TIA crown aren't worked up about gun registration is that it's largely irrelevant: all you have to do is buy one box of ammo one time using a credit card and you've given them a solid data point fingering you as a probable gun owner, along with a pretty good idea of what weapon(s) you own. Leaving the guns themselves alone makes them look like they're respecting the Constitution, and wins them points among the pro-RTKBA crowd. It's a way of obeying the letter of the law while ignoring it's intent.

Even more insidiously they can look at your purchase history for things like paper targets, clay pidgeons, gun cleaning supplies, range fees, hunting licenses, and so forth. Every gun-related purchase you make that can be tied back to you gives the government another data point telling them what kind of guns you own, how many you have, and how often you use them. Just one more reason to pay cash for everything.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[Tassach]

There is not any clear line between a registry and seizure

Cite one modern example where a government has implemented a gun registration scheme and not gone back later using (or attempting to use) those registrations to confiscate those weapons from their law-abiding owners. Registry was successfuly used as a precursor to confiscation in England and Australia within the last decade or so.

firearms would be useless as a tool of resistance, with or without a registry. Ask David Koresh.

I'd say that Koresh and the Branch Davidians (BDs) resisted the BATF and FBI quite effectively - the BDs held the government at bay for several weeks. The government was successfully able to shape public opinion that the BDs were dangerous nutjobs (which they were, IMHO) and thus avoided mass protests and/or armed intervention by a pissed-off citizenry. If the BDs hadn't been able to offer an effective resistance, most of us would have never known what happened.

Re:The "rocketry" ruling isn't the whole picture

[pete-classic]

Ah, nice to find a kindred spirit!

I have to disagree with you on the BDs, however. I think that they were the victims of a vicious smear campaign. I think that there is a very good chance that "they" were nutjobs, to a greater or lesser degree, but I have seen no evidence that they were the list bit dangerous.

AFAIK the government has yet to produce any evidence of illegal firearms in the "compound" (a word who's selection I find interesting).

I can hardly bring myself to judge them harshly for being well armed (a.k.a. "stockpiling weapons") since the facts bear out that the government was out to get them.

The sad fact is that all we really have to go on is HOs, since the government was so heavy handed in this matter.

Earlier in the same letter you quote in your sig TJ said of Shays' Rebellion (which is specifically the topic of the quote):

god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.

Honestly, I think that if the government ever tries to pull any shit like that again in Texas there will be an uprising.

-Peter

1 2 3

[ObviousGuy]

1. Don't break into gov't installations. Tresspassing onto a cattle rancher's property may get you shot. Tresspassing onto gov't property will get you shot.

2. Python. Not as old as Perl.

3. Rockets. It's a problem of shipping the propellant. If you carry the boosters yourself, you're okay. You just can't ship them.

Re:1 2 3

[elflet]

Rockets. It's a problem of shipping the propellant. If you carry the boosters yourself, you're okay. You just can't ship them.

That depends on where you live and how you're travelling. You can't take the morors on an airplane, for example (this has been true for years), but driving is OK. Also, there are small composite motors that are below the 62.5 gram limit but have not been certified in all states (e.g. California) and thus are not legal to posess in those states.

It's a shame -- I'd love to use some of the mini-composite motors -- they have serious lift for their weight.

Re:1 2 3

[idontgno]

1. National Labs are a queer situation. Semi-demi-hemi-governmental installation. And, as aways, there's usually more land and encompasses than the security zone. (Not on an Air Force base, though. Almost always 100% of the base is a security zone.)

2. I really oughta learn Python. I can write straightforward stuff in Perl, but I don't suss the arcana. Just reading the Perl Apocalypse issue mentioned in the recent /. article and I realized I don't know squat about Perl. Maybe Python will give me another crack at language uber-mastery.

3. If you have a local retailer, you may still be in business, unless that retailer gets his stuff from his distibutor by air...

Re:1 2 3

[idontgno]

...there's usually more land and encompasses than the security zone.

Sheesh, I need to preview better. "There's usually more land than encompasses the security zone.

Re:1 2 3

[Anonymous Coward]

I really oughta learn Python
You should try Ruby; it's much nicer than either Perl or Python.

http://www.ruby-lang.org

Re:1 2 3

[Moses Lawn]

2) Don't worry, no one but Larry Wall and a few other Illuminati really understand Perl. The rest of us just muddle through using the 35% or so of the language that gets 95% of our work done. Yeah, I look at CPAN code and say "Gee, I wish I could do that, whatever that does", but then again, most CPAN code I've seen is almost gratuitously arcane and complex. A few comments on the tricky bits wouldn't hurt anything, guys.

If you wanna learn Perl, I'd suggest getting the Perl Cookbook and browsing through it. I learn a lot of neat, useful tricks that way. The Camel book (Programming Perl) I think is a bit overrated, at least as a teaching book (which I suppose it isn't, really, but it sort of is, too). It's hard to find some things, and a lot of the examples assume you understand the lauguage as well as the authors do.

Still, *I'm* not giving up my copy anytime soon. So don't flame me for heresy.

Re:1 2 3

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

You should try Ruby; it's much nicer than either Perl or Python.

That is, if you live in the intersection of the set of people who want a cross between Smalltalk and Perl, and the set of people who enjoy using really immature libraries.

For the rest of us who live in the larger set consisting of the intersection of people who want to get work done and the set of people who want to write code that other people have a prayer of maintaining, Python fits the bill.

Re:1 2 3

[Mr. Slippery]

For the rest of us who live in the larger set consisting of the intersection of people who want to get work done and the set of people who want to write code that other people have a prayer of maintaining, Python fits the bill.

...minus the set of us who realize that any language that makes whitespace syntactically significant should be taken out and shot. Yeah, I really enjoyed that idea when I was forced to work in Fortran for a college class, and it's certainly a joy when dealing with makefiles.

Really. The only explanation I can come up with for a decision like that is drugs. Really bad drugs....

Re:1 2 3

[Tyler Eaves]

Note the complete lack of any "Obfuscated Python" contest. Draw your own conclusions.

Re:1 2 3

[pyite]

I agree. I read something about the whole enforced formatting thing once before. Then, it was confirmed in the little slashback blurb. That's ridiculously stupid.

Re:1 2 3

[Chmarr]

The first day, it will feel really weird.

The second day, you'll forget all about it, because all you have to do is indend like you'd indent anyway. Ie, what you see IS what you get.

Re:1 2 3

[WetCat]

4 ...
5 Profit!

Re:1 2 3

[pyite]

But my point is that everyone has a different style. I want to decide where I want to indent/start a new line, based on whether or not I think it is needed, not whether or not Guido thinks it's needed.

Re:1 2 3

[idontgno]

If you wanna learn Perl, I'd suggest getting the Perl Cookbook and browsing through it. I learn a lot of neat, useful tricks that way

Hell, I've implemented production software by pasting together multiple snippets from the Cookbook. I think I've invested maybe 200 lines of original Perl in all our production and support suite.

Buying the Perl Bookshelf was the best investment our organization ever made, and O'Reilly Press is God.

Re:1 2 3

[Chmarr]

It's already available in python. For example, in a if statement, if your true condition is a throwaway statement, you can put it on the same line. Viz:

if x < 0: x = 0

Or even two throwaway statements:

if x < 0: x = 0; underflow = 1

But you need to use indending if your true condition follows multiple lines:

if x < 0:
_ x = 0
_ underflow = 1
_ window.messagebox ( "Underflow." )

(_ is used to force an indent)

If you've got a block, and you're NOT indenting, then I certainly wouldn't want you on my programming team :)

(And, yes, this post gives a good demonstration of one of the downsides of python's indenting requirements. My opinion: the upsides outweigh the downsides)

Re:1 2 3

[pyite]

Ok, it's not as bad that you don't have to use separate lines in the cases you mentioned. Although I do like my curlys.

Re:1 2 3

[Anonymous Coward]

Buying the Perl Bookshelf was the best investment our organization ever made...

Yep, and snagging it off the shelf when the last place I worked went out of business was a great investment too...

Re:1 2 3

[Jason Earl]

The rest of us just muddle through using the 35% or so of the language that gets 95% of our work done.

That worked fine for me until I needed to alter one of the packages from CPAN. The package in question (name withheld to protect the innocent) did 90% of what I needed, and it was extremely well written and well commented, but it just so happened that the 35% of Perl that it used to get the job done did not overlap hardly at all with the 35% that I was used to using. That is where I fell in love with the Camel book, as I kept banging my head against Perlisms that were just plain weird.

In the end, I solved the problem, but I was so sick of Perl that I gave Python a whirl. I rewrote the program in Python in a few days (the tricky bits had already been solved writing it in Perl), and I have never looked back. It is much easier to read someone else's Python than someone else's Perl. Another huge advantage for me (as an Emacs user) is that Python's documentation is available as info files. That's quite a bit nicer (IMHO) than just man files. Of course, the fact that the Python documentation is so good is a bit of a bummer for the folks writing Python books.

Re:1 2 3

[bloo9298]

Yes, but did you notice how you were forced to introduce new syntax (the underscore) in your description? Some of us have plenty of experience with using languages where whitespace is significant over the past 20 years, and we're saying "using whitespace to indicate block structure is not robust, the redundancy of block delimiters is useful."

Re:1 2 3

[Chmarr]

Yes, I did notice that (which is why I commented on it, so you didn't have to). I've also done my fair share of cobol programming and hated it. Python's use of whitespace to determine semantics is wholly different from that.

Personally, I much prefer having the visual structure and 'actual structure' be the same thing, rather than separate concepts as in something like C or perl. The reduction in time debugging programs because of something that looks blocked correctly but isn't, because the {} and indenting mismatch, has been significant. Yes, I appreciate that I could run my C and perl programs though a prettyprinter, but EVERY time a program doesn't work properly? No thanks.

Remember, I'm not saying that this particular feature is a massive boon, only that it's not as significant as a lot of folk make it out to be. When first instroduced to it, I too was turned off by that particular quirk, but after a day, it's second nature. Challenge yourself, surprise yourself... write your next 1000-line project in Python.

Re:1 2 3

[Chmarr]

Followup...

Actually, I shouldn't have said 'whitespace to determine semantics', because that's not correct at all. It's 'INDENTING determines semantics' which is a whole bunch less offensive. Apart from the indenting, whitespace is NOT significant in python.

Re:1 2 3

[Chmarr]

And a second followup...

Python also has block redundancies. You must introduce a new block with the ':' syntatic element. If you indent and you don't have that, the parser gives you a SyntaxError exception (A real python exception, too, that you can trap, if you're doing run-time interpretation of code).

Similarly, if you use ':' and you DON'T indent, you'll also get a SyntaxError.

The only exception would be ending a block earlier than anticipated. Ie, you forget to indend the last line of the block (an example that I raised elsewhere). And, that's something that's going to be pretty damn obvious on the screen. Compare that minor gaff with the following gaff common in C


if ( x < 0 );
{
x = 0;
underflow = 1;
}


Which will NOT do what you expect. This situation is not possible in Python (nor in Perl, actually, but I bet you could find a similar 'one character changes the entire meaning' in perl too ;)

Re:1 2 3

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a challenge to me... :)

Re:1 2 3

[godefroi]

Doesn't Python duplicate one of the most hated "features" of VB, i.e. using whitespace to mark ends of things (lines, blocks, whatever)? Why is it terrible when VB does it but a great feature when Python does it?

Don't get me wrong here, I hate VB and all that it stands for. It encourages terrible coding practices. I do, however, hate Python worse. What if I want an extra line break in there to logically separate things?

Re:1 2 3

[UselessPython]

If you mean inserting a blank line, such as between code blocks or significant subsections of code, that won't break a Python program. It'll run just fine.

Re:1 2 3

[haystor]

Documentation...bah!

Seriously though, Python is so consistent the documentation works well. This is definitely a strength of Python.

For those beginning in Perl, here are some quick tips to learning it faster:

on the command line, type "perldoc". Use this like "perldoc -f open" to learn about the open function. Type "perldoc perl" for a list of different docs that can be viewed with perldoc.

Buy the camel book (Programming Perl, 3rd edition). Don't read it straight through, look up the parts you need but try to eventually read all of it. Toward the back of the book is a section with error messages. The single biggest leap in my Perl programming experience occurred when I found this section. When you get a cryptic error message, look it up in the back of the Programming Perl book and 9 times out of 10 it will say something like "this usually occurs when you tried to do xxx" and its right. Unfortunately I read the book straight through and didn't get to that section until about 2 months into using Perl.

If you're unsure how a feature should work, guess. A lot of the features of Perl become intuitive in a hard-to-document English language sort of way. Larry's a linguist and there is a definite pattern of how Perl listens to your commands even if its hard to describe. This way of doing things is odd to a lot of people but I think its the main reason that there is an interesting overlap between Perl and LISP programmers (not the Perl sysadmin types, they wouldn't beat LISP with a stick).

Tips for learning Python:

Get an editor that handles the space versus tab thing or you'll go crazy.

Make sure you have the newest stuff. These guys are still developing fast and at a high quality so there's no reason to miss out on something new and good.

These are just tidbits from learning the languages. I'm not so great with Python, so I don't offer much advice there because I'm not sure I've learned it right yet. Perl feels quite at home on Unix, which is where I've been paid to work for the last 7 years or so. Python has a definite good feel to it that appeals to the mathematician side of me, but when I want to satisfy that I use LISP (I don't get paid for that though).

Re:1 2 3

[keyslammer]

..minus the set of us who realize that any language that makes whitespace syntactically significant should be taken out and shot.

Here we go again. Seems like no one can talk about Python in non-python-programmer forum without the issue of indentation-as-syntax coming up.

I won't attempt to argue for why indentation-is-syntax is a good thing. Suffice it to say that those of us who program in Python generally consider this to be one of the language's greatest features and (from what I can see) most of the people who make statements like yours haven't done any coding in Python.

Re:1 2 3

[WNight]

Btw, most C compilers will catch your code snippet and complain that the it doesn't do anything. (Unless x is declared volatile, in which case "useless" expressions often have a purpose, like to toggle a soft-switch, and don't get optimised out.)

Anyways, the example is also a demonstration of why that brace style isn't the _One True Way_, which is the put the opening brace on the line of code that opens it. "if (foo) {\n" Which makes it easier to catch hanging semicolons. But, by far, the largest mistake I've seen where one character changes the meaning is "" instead of "=" or vice versa. Fencepost errors I think they're called. But, for a typo, any comparison in there is just as bad, it won't do what you expect.

Interpretted languages have one huge benefit. They're easy to test. (And good programmers write easily tested code.) So you probably run a test every ~50 lines of code and will catch blocks that don't execute and so on. I'd hate to write a C project that took hours to compile.

I was writing hello-world type code in python and I remember it as having two syntaxes for an if, one that required an indented block and one that was meant for one line. I found this awkward and I prefer being able to use explicit controls (braces) to put a block where I want it. Was I mistaken?

Admittedly, perl does have a lot of cruft. Like "foo unless bar"... What the hell is that for?! Why not "if (!bar) {foo}". If the conditional is in front you can see when something is going to happen, which is almost always more useful right off the bat, than seeing what is happening. I write perl code that like my C code, is very readable. The only part that tends not to be is regexps and even those I break out onto multiple lines (and document) when they're more than a little complex.

Languages like perl and python and much more readable in terms of logic flow. You don't need to have an array size counter and count from zero to size - 1, you simple do "foreach $value (@array) { foo }" and even a non-programmer knows what's going on. With usable variable names it's very plain. Self documenting code through clear naming and structure.

Re:1 2 3

[Chmarr]

You don't exactly sound anti-Python, there :) Responding accordingly:

Anyways, the example is also a demonstration of why that brace style isn't the _One True Way_

I thoroughly agree. When I code C I always put the brace on the same line as the condition. That's not how a lot of people code C, though. Furthermore, this is trying to solve a deficiency in the language with a coding style (not the first, nor the last, this'll happen), and if you're making that argument, it also argues for python's indenting requirement. Python just happens to use that indenting as a syntatic construct, which in turn forces indenting. This is a Good Thing in my book.

But, for a typo, any comparison in there is just as bad, it won't do what you expect.

However, you can ensure that common typos are caught by the parser. In python, two common typos are caught. See my previous comment regarding matching indent blocks and the ':' element. Also, python doesn't suffer from accidental use of '=' instead of '==' in a conditional, since a value assignment is a statement, and not an expression. Yes, I'm aware that most modern C compilers catch this error, but not always.

I was writing hello-world type code in python and I remember it as having two syntaxes for an if, one that required an indented block and one that was meant for one line. I found this awkward and I prefer being able to use explicit controls (braces) to put a block where I want it. Was I mistaken?

You're not mistaken. See my other previous comment for details. However, I think this is a non-argument. If you dont want to put the block on the same line, then just don't. All you need to do is indent it some, just like you would be doing anyway.

I do agree that perl's use of regexps is really easy, but Perl gets that because regexps are part of the language. By contrast, Python puts that into a library, which makes it a little harder to use compactly, but certainly not hard to use. Additionally, it allows for very clear use of pre-compiled expressions, and having multiple expression match results active at the same time. Something which is awkward in Perl.

Re:1 2 3

[Tassach]

those of us who program in Python generally consider this to be one of the language's greatest features

I'm sure that rabid Ford Pinto fans consider the possibility of bursting into flames when rear-ended to be a great feature too. If it works for you, that's great. To me, forced indenting brings back painful memories of COBOL and FORTRAN. Then again, I'm one of those people who think Perl code looks like line noise.

Re:1 2 3

[godefroi]

It's the principle. I really like the brackets and semicolons. I hate whitespace-delimited languages.

Re:1 2 3

[UselessPython]

But the whitespace-delimited languages really like you! ;)

Re:1 2 3

[WNight]

You don't exactly sound anti-Python, there

Python has its uses. Just because I don't use it (yet perhaps, dunno) isn't reason to bash it.

It's all about the programmer anyways. People can write unmaintainable code in any language, or write beautiful ASM.

Also, python doesn't suffer from accidental use of '=' instead of '==' in a conditional

That's one of the things I missed going from pascal to C. Using := for assignment was such a nice touch. No mistakes and only one more character.

I think this is a non-argument. If you dont want to put the block on the same line, then just don't.

What I mean is that if I want to pull a small block up in C or perl I just change the indenting. An extra syntax to allow that seems a little silly. I'd think that a (normally phrased) conditional followed by a statement, followed by unindented code, should be interpreted properly without having a new syntax.

Anyways, I'm very late for a meeting. I'll return to this later though.

Thanks for the response.

Re:1 2 3

[Chmarr]

What I mean is that if I want to pull a small block up in C or perl I just change the indenting. An extra syntax to allow that seems a little silly. I'd think that a (normally phrased) conditional followed by a statement, followed by unindented code, should be interpreted properly without having a new syntax.

I think I understand what you mean here, and it's still a non argument. For example, the following two python snippets are equivalent (underscores used to force indenting: stupid slashdot ;) :

if somecondition:
_ somestatement

if somecondition: somestatement

Ie, no extra syntax to 'pull up' a block, if that was what you meant. OTOH, if you meant taking some statements out of the if block, and have them always execute, then it works just as well in python:

if somecondition:
_ statement1
_ statement2

Turns into:

if somecondition:
_ statement1
statement2

With the BIG advantage that you don't have to relocate any braces just to take 'statement2' out of the if block. Just unindent. However, if you wanted to bring BOTH statements out of the IF, you need to tell python that you intended to leave the If block empty:

if somecondition:
_ pass
statement1
statement2

So, yes, there's some extra syntax there (the 'pass'), but that's a GOOD THING in my book, as you're telling the parser that you intended the IF to be empty.

One downside is it's harder to temporarily edit out a block of code with a 'if (0)', because you HAVE to indent the block for it to take effect. In that case, it's easier to just use most editors 'add in a comment marker to all these lines'. There is one saving grace, though, in that the parser has a good chance of picking up badly marked blocks because of the indenting rules.

Re:1 2 3

[WNight]

Ie, no extra syntax to 'pull up' a block, if that was what you meant.

Hmmm. That certainly is what I want, though it isn't what I remember.

I will have to give Python a try. If for no other reason that adding a few more lines to the resume.

Mmm... Doughnut.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm... Doughnut.

what ABOUT lisp/scheme

[banka]

the linked article also mentions lisp/scheme - why haven't us schemers gotten together yet to celebrate its sweetness???

Re:what ABOUT lisp/scheme

[fusiongyro]

Probably because most of the truly hard-core lispers have transcended need for physical "containers" in this universe, and instead exist as pure energy...

The big lisper around here that I know once had a dream in which he was a lisp program, consing on additional limbs to do his tasks as it was going on.

--
Daniel

Re:what ABOUT lisp/scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most Lispen have switched to Python.

Re:what ABOUT lisp/scheme

[__past__]

lispers have transcended need for physical "containers" in this universe, and instead exist as pure energy...

Not at all. I don't know about Scheme, but there has been a movement to form "user groups" by Common Lisp people around the world (see this list of local lispnik groups and check if there are some people in your area).

In most cases those meetings turned out to happen in nice bars and involved both talking Lisp and drinking beer, which IMHO clearly qualifies as physical.

As a subsciber, you are paying for this

[Real World Stuff]

post dedicated to mikey sims.

# Adams Jeffrey fuck damn Shit Cocksucker motherfucker Pussy Cunt Asshole Fuckhead Fuckface Dick Shitface Asshole cleaner Fucking bitch Tits Bitch God damn whore Clit Twat Bastard # Alston Melissa Bitch Whore Slut Dog Asshole Jackass Bastard Prostitute Ho Hooker Call Girl Damn Shit Screw Fuck Bulldager Shithead cocksucker Lessy # Anderson Tarsha Lier Bullshit Shit Fuck Prejudice Whore Bastard Bitch # Ashley Elizabeth Shit Fuck Damn Asshole Queer Fag Cum Piss Anus motherfucker Goddamn Hell Prick Pussy Suck Blow Job Clit Crap Bastard # Barnes Allison Nigger Damn Shit Slut Cunt Pussy Fuck Bitch Bastard Whore Hell Faggot Dick damnmit MotherFucker Son of a bitch Ass Asshole Pecker # Barrineau Keri Shit Fuck Damn Bitch Dick Bastard Whore Ass Asshole Motherfucker Cocksucker Son of a Bitch Pussy Shit head Cunt Prick Hell Faggit Piss Tit # Belcher Shawn Motherfucker Cuntsucker Son of a Bitch Fuckhead Whore Slut Nigger Bitch Buttfucker Damn Shit Honker Hell Dike Faggot Cuntbreath Fuck Pussy Ugly Vertical Taco # Belton Innis Shit Damn Fuck Mutherfucker Ass Bastard Got Damn It Dick Pussy Asshole Titty Hell Slut Whore Bitch Son of a Bitch Dick Breath Jackass Butthead Fatass # Borman Matt Shit Fuck Tit Whore Asshole Dickhead Cock Cunt Dike Slut Clit Butthole Bitch Dick Pussy Piss Fag motherfucker Cum Shithead # Bradley Cleveland Damn Shit Ass Fuck Dick Pussy Asshole Bitch Bastard Motherfucker Hell # Broome Jennifer Jesus Christ My God God damnit Hell Fuck Dick Fuck Pussy Cunt Asshole Bitch Bastard Whore motherfucker Jackass Wetback Spic Nigger Damn Shit # Brumbach Elizabeth Booger Whore Cunt Pissed off Cocksucker Hell Peckerhead Pussy Fart Shit Slut Bitch Ticked off Butt Fuck Damn Dick Tits Asshole Buttpicker # Bush Micheal Fuck Shit God Damn Stupid Ugly Fatso Nerd Nigger Chink Jap Wop Jesus Christ Racist Fag Dike Loser Bum Whore Slut Dickhead # Carmack Embrey Hell Damn Bitch Shit Bullshit Fuck God Damn it Ass Asshole Buttfuck Cocksucker Bastard Cunt Dick Cock Shlong Douche bag Boner Bonehead Beaver # Christmas Gary Whore Slut Cunt Pussy Ass Fuck Dick Prick Cock Poontang Tits Balls Bitch Bastard Dilldos Goddam Suck Twat Asshole Shit # Crossland Kelly Hell Damn Bitch Bastard Jackass Ass Shit Fuck Jew Nigger Honky Dyke Jackoff Loser Sucker Asshole Shithead Retard Cock Faggot # Danforth Denise Shit Fuck Bitch Slut Tramp Ass Asshole Damn Motherfucker Dick Prick Bung Hole Pussy Cunt Snatch Your Mother Bastard Whore # DeBoev Rob Shit Fuck Damn Asshole Dick Pussy Cunt Twat Motherfucker Bitch # Degner Debra Damn Shit Hell Fuck Bullshit Piss God damnit Pussy Motherfucker Dick Asshole Jackass Bitch Bastard Whore Slut Fool Dickhead # Dent Eric Shit Fuck Bitch Damn Ass Cunt Pussy Dick Dilldoe Nigger Honkey Chink Gook Faggot Queer Homo Peter Cock Wanker Cum Tits Bulls # Dooley Nancy Crap Hell Damn Shit Suck Piss Dick Motherfucker Shit head Fuck Bitch Bastard Slut Whore Ass Asshole Dickhead Dick Breath Bullshit damnit # Edgerton Beth Fuck Shit Damn Hell Cunt Pussy Asshole Dickhead Bitch Whore Slag Cum Cock Dildo Strap on Vitrator Nuts Prick Jacking off Bull shit Hard on Clit Fart # Evans Beth Shit Bitch Damn Hell Ass Fuck Bastard Dick Piss Honky Nigger Kike Bufu Cunt Cum Cooter Pecker Twat Cock Fart Slut Whore Prick Scrog # Leather Daniel Shit Fuck Faggot Dickhead Bitch Bastard Asshole Damn Hell # Feaster John Fuck God Damn Bastard Asshole Dick Head Smagna Fuck up Toe Jam Nigger Butt hair Cunt Lick Shit Motherfucker Cunt Pussy Shit head # Fleming Tina Bitch God Damn Shit Asshole Fuck Hell Son of a Bitch motherfucker Bastard # Glover Michael Shit Shithead Dick Hell Bullshit Bitch Fuck Ass Motherfucker Pussy Son of a Bitch # Gore Jennifer Shit Fuck Hell Damn God Damn Dick Pussy Cock # Griffith Ramona Fuck You Asshole Dumbass Shithead Cum Stain Penis Wrinkle Fucking Shit Gutter Slut Bitch From Hell Motherfucker Cunt Lick # Hall Stephanie Bitch Fuck Bastard Asshole Slut Prostitute Whore Shithead Piss Screw Jesus Christ Damn God Damn God damnit Queer Ass # Hanna Marla Shit Damn Ass Dick Motherfucker Bitch Fatass Penis head Cunt Asswipe Asshole Dumbass Shit Head cocksucker Fuckhead Nigger Lover Faggot Ass Asskisser Dick Breath Tuna # Harrison Jennifer Shit Fuck Hell Bitch motherfucker Slut Whore Bastard Pussy cocksucker Crap Asshole Son of a Bitch Damn God Damn Dick Prick Cunt Cock # Hicks Melady Ass Asshole Bastard Bitch Bullshit Butch Damn Dick Dike Faggot Hell Fuck Pussy Motherfucker Screw Shitass Slut Son of A Bitch Bitch Whore # Howell Vanessa MotherFucker Asshole Shithloe Cocksucker Pussy Dick # Humphrey Janice Damn Shit Hell Fuck Goddamn MotherFucker Son of a Bitch Whore Asshole Shithead Fuckface # Hudnall Michelle Fuck Shit Damn Hell Motherfucker Pussy Cunt Ho Bastard Son of A Bitch Bitch Asshole Dick Fuck you Your Mama God Damn Ass Damn it Sleeze # Hunsberger Ann Shit Fuck Goddamn Shithead Dick Motherfucker Son of a Bitch Faggot Pussy Cunt Bitch Crap Ass Asshole Fuck you Cock Slut Whore # Hunter Kevin Fuck Shit Damn Ass Asshole Bull shit God damnit Faggot Pussy Cunt Twat Dick War Hate Lesbian Cum Shithead Enemy Kill Drugs # Jackson Aaron Shit Damn Fuck God Damn Bitch motherfucker Screw Hell Son of a Bitch Jesus Pussy Hooters Dick Tit Bull Shit Asshole Butt Breath Rump ranger Brown eye Queer Dike Faggot # Johnson Jenny Damn Hell Shit Bitch Bastard Fuck Dick Pussy Slut Whore Asshole Cunt Twat Cooter Faggot Tit Piss Dildo Dyke Prick # Johnson Patricia Shut up Hell Motherfucker # Josephs Mark Shit Pussy Cunt Fuck God Damn Son of a Bitch Dick Shit head Ass Fuck off Dick face Suck my dick Lick my cunt Bitch Fuck you Fuck me Fucking Farting Shiting Shooting a wade Sperm Bastard motherfucker # Justice Dena Shit Damn Fuck Screw motherfucker Asshole Faggot Whore Bitch Slut Hussy Dike Lessy Piss Dickhead Pussy Whip Cunt cocksucker Hell Asswipe Son of a Bitch Shithead Ass Bullshit Ass Ho Bucket Cunt Puntang # Kimball Deanna Asshole Bitch Shit Fuck Damn Dick Cocksucker Shithead Bullshit Asswipe Dipshit Dickbreath motherfucker Shit Face Shit for brains one eyed bastard # King Jacqueline Fuck Shit Asshole God damn Dick Piss Faggot Bitch Hell Pussy Bastard Bullshit Crap Homo # Laws Stacey Shit Bitch Damn Twat Dick Fuck Pussy Fagit Muff Bastard Cum Whore Clit Jack off Asshole Son of a Bitch Cocksucker Motherfucker Cunt Shithead # Lee Christy Piss Shit Fuck Cunt Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits Dick Ass Asshole Dick head Fagget Shit head Pussy Cock Prick Butt Fucker Dick Cheese Bitch Son of a Bitch Damn # Lee David Shit Fuck Goddamn Damn Ass Asshole motherfucker Dick Pussy Fuckface Shithole Shithead Bitch Fucking Son of a Bitch Fuck Dickhead Dicksucker Shitass Dickface # Leishman Rick Asshole Bastard Bullshit Blowjob Cunt Clit Cum Cunnilingus Dick Dong Dildo Fucking Furburger Gazongers Gonads Hell Ho Jizz Knob Cobia mound Quefe # Lipscomb Charles Shithead Queer Hell Pissed off Tits Shit Motherfucker Fuck Dick Asshole Pussy Cunt Bastard Son of a Bitch Goddamn # Lipscomb Laura Damn Ass Hell Bitch Bastard Fuck Asshole Dick Dickhead Goddammit Fuckhead Son of a Bitch Dumbass Fuckup Pissed Whore Shithead Slackass # Madden Mandi Damn Shit Ass Jackass Dong Shoot Buttface Fart Dag gummit Darn it # Mcmahan Kerri Shit Pussy Dick Cunt Penis Breath Whore Slut Bitch Bastard Asshole Damn Cocksucker Buttfucker Nigger Shit Crusty Crotch # McRae Keith Ass Asshole Bastard Bitch Hoar Fuck Shit Cocksucker Piss Dick Faggot Pussy Hell Cum # Miller Gordie Shit Piss Cock Dick Pecker Balls Cunt Slit Fuck Crap Tits Damn Pussy Asshole # Nabors Emily Shit Damn Hell God damn motherfucker Asshole Bitch Whore Son of a Bitch Bastard Slut Dick Cunt Pussy Fuck Pecker Honky Nigger # Neill Mark Shit Asshole Dickhead Fuck Slut Whore Bitch Ass Dick Bullshit Cunt Dike # Nolan Cullen Fuck Shit Cunt Bitch Slut Nigger Jew Pussy Dick Ass Bastard Prick Horny Cum Titty Doggie Style # Nowell Nancy Fuck Shit Hell Damn Asshole Shithead Fucker Pussy Penis Butthole Ass Bitch Dicksmack Bastard # Owens Jerry Goddamn Fuck Bitch Bastard Faggot Shit Asshole Dick Cunt # Oxner Alberta No Can't Won't Never Punishment Unsuitable Job # Parson Tracey Shit Fuck Damn Fucker Bitch Pussy Dick Piss Hell Prick Cunt Cock # Pendarvis Warren Pussy Fuck Dick Cocksucker Faggot motherfucker Shit Pussy lip Ass lick Cunt lip Hell Dumb ass Cum quat Twat Dick Wrinkle Bull Shit Whore # Pickett Connier Jerk Bastard Whore Airhead Mierda Poo poo Piss Dumbbell Hell Bitch Shit Fuck # Pitts Lori Damn Shit Hell Dick Fuck Ass Piss Bitch Bastard Bullshit Masterbate Hussy Slut Jackass # Powell Stephanie Damn Shit Fuck Clit motherfucker Cunt Ass Piss Bitch Shithead Whore Fucker Fareskin Schmeka Fart Asshole # Priest Eric Damn Shit Asshole Shitface Faggot Motherfucker Ass # Rivens Antione Fuck Shit Bitch Motherfucker Goddamn Pussy Son of a Bitch Punk Faggot Dick Sucker Slut Whore Asshole # Rumph Christopher Bitch Ass Bastard Fuck Bullshit Shit MotherFucker Hell Pussy Shithead Dick Brain Damn # Saul Stephanie Hell Shit Damn Ass Fuck Friggin Suckes Son of a Bitch Asshole Asswipe Shithead Nigger Honkey Bullshit Whore Slut # Shelley Jeff Shit Fuck Damn Bitch Bastard Ass Goddamn Motherfucker Asshole Pussydick # Smith Craig Fuck Shit Hell Damn Ass Fuckbutt Dickhead Pussy Asshole Shithead Son of a Bitch Motherfucker Bullhell Pussylips Piss Ant Slutty Bitch Cheesy Ass From Hell Titty Sucker Whore Dog # Staton Jan Dick Dickhead Dickless Faggot Asshole Shit Fuck Fuck You Fuck Off Damn Goddamn Piss Off Pussy Cunt Cuntdog Motherfucker # Stevenson Albert Bitch Bastard Asshole Shithead Motherfucker Son of a Bitch Fuck Shit Got Damn Shit Ass # Stewart Lisa Hell Shit Poo Poo Clit Shithead Asshole Fuck Face Cock Cunt cocksucker # Stone Charles Damn Lucifer Shit Hell Bitch Bastard # Suggs Christa Bitch Shit Damn Asshole Fuck Ass Asswipe Shithead Motherfucker Pussy Dick Bastard Son of a Bitch Son of a Whore Whore Fart # Taylor Andrea Damn Shit Hell Fuck Faggot Son of A Bitch Goddamn Shit Ass Fuck Ass Whore motherfucker Bull Shit Ass Nigger # Thompson David Shit Fuck Damn Dick Pussy Cock Goddamn Ass Cumn Hell Tag Penis cocksucker Fucker Pimp # Thomas Ronald Fuck Shit Damned Dick Head Bitch motherfucker Bastard Hell God Damned Asshole Bullshit # Tiffner Angie Shit Fuck Hell Ass Asshole Damnit Pissed Off Crap Bitch Whore Bitty Slut Dike Pussy Bastard Son of a Bitch Faggot # Vaughn Troy Fuck Shit Ass Bastard Hell Son of a Bitch Pussy Prick Asshole Cunt Fuckface Cocksucker # Venezia Tony Asshole Bastard Blowjob Browntown Browneye Buttfucker Chink Circle Jerk Clam Clit Cock Cocksucker Dick Faggot Fatass Guinne Keaster Lesbo Nigger Penis Quief Ream Schlong Shmegma Tits Up the Butt Wang Weat Back Yellow rat bastard # Veres Greg Fuck Shit Goddamn Bitch Motherfucker Son of A Bitch Ass Pussy Cunt Dick Nigger Twat Tits Dildo # Waller Rachel Shit Damn Fuck Ass Cunt Bullshit Motherfucker Goddamn Hell # Waters Kim Piss Fart Prick Bitch Damn Son of a Bitch Motherfucker Hell Ass Asshole Whore Slut Shit Bullshit Dick Cock Snatch # Watson Jamie Damn Shit motherfucker Fuck You Ass Bitch Dick Pussy Fuck # Whelan Michael Shit Fuck Bitch Ass Dick Cunt Pussy Penis Cock Bastard Dickhead Fag Asswipe Hell Damn Shithead Fucker # White Carolyn Shit Damn Ass Goddamn Asshole Asswipe Bitch Bastard Hell # Williams Lisa Shit Damn Fuck Pussy Dick Bullshit Asshole Ass Cock Bitch Cunt Cooter Jackass Douche Bag Belly Whacker # Wise Micheal Pussy Fuck Shit Cunt Bastard Bitch Whore Slut Bullshit Douche Bag Douche Juice Butthole Sweat Clit Pussy Lips Quief # Ziehl Therese Shit Damn Fuck Ass Asshole Hell Crap Fart Piss Screw Jesus Christ Christ Jeez God Dick Boner Pussy Cunt Prick Boob Tit Spic Jew Kraut Nigger Mick Polack Bitch Bastard Motherfucker Son of a Bitch Dio Sheister Roger Merde

This sucks....

[Aphex Junkie]

I used to love making model rockets, and now I can't even buy engines where I live! (FP wheee!)

Prefer Python to Perl?

[ntr0py]

"for those who prefer that language to Perl"

What about Tcl?

Re:Prefer Python to Perl?

[geekoid]

you don't count.

you must have 1 flame war a week on /. just to be considered a real non-language. ;)

Re:Prefer Python to Perl?

[aquaajb]

This country is turing communist.

Re:Prefer Python to Perl?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about it? Submit a story about a Tcl conference and it might be posted as well.

How long do engines last?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a couple dozen old Estes engines in various sizes. They've been sitting for almost a decade in a "locked" shoebox (rubber banded). Any idea if these things are still any good?

Re:How long do engines last?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw them in the fire and find out! Be sure to have your nurse tell us how it went.

Re:How long do engines last?

[Sooner Boomer]

Are they still "good"? Probably. Are they still safe? If they have been kept from any temperature and humidity extreems - probably. Are they legal to use in a sanctioned (NAR sponsored) launch? No, engines (and reload kits) have a specific expiration date. However they can still be used in a non-sanctioned just-for-fun type launch. Sunday I used an engine dating back to the mid-70's and it worked flawlessly. The engine (a Centauri B14-0) has not even been made for many years.

Re:How long do engines last?

[vistas]

Engines can be used at a NAR launch if their type hasn't been discontinued. I.E. If you have a 30 year old Estes B6-4 (I have a few), you can use them at a NAR launch, since Estes still makes that type.

Of course, your example is correct. Centuri/Estes hasn't made a B14-0 in at least 20 years, therefore the NAR, generally citing liability-not performance- no longer allows them.

pretty obvious, don't you think?

[trmj]

What does this mean for the the big guys in model rocketry, who use engines larger than this?

Umm.. IANAL, but I would interpret this to mean that they won't use engines larger than that without complying to the new set of laws.

Besides, it's not like you can't use more than one engine per rocket.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do much model rocketry, huh? As I remember, multi-stage kits most definately do have more than one engine per rocket.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[pngwen]

not to mention all those cluster rockets that you can build. If it's under 1kg in propellant weight it's still only a model.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[taniwha]

like this one? .... (this also answers Timothy's "who uses engines larger than these?" question)

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[JDizzy]

Actually, the way I read it is this only affects the solid propelant variants. High power rocketeers can still use the hybrid engine format that they have been using for 5 years to get around various transport restrictions. The hybrids use nytrous-oxide as a propelant, with a solid catalist. THe solid not actualyl being propelant. The synergy of the nitrus + catalist makes it stronger, faster, etc.. Check out a link to a hybrid motor maker.

This will certainly make it hard for the really hardcore of use who use the Solids for first stage boost. The hybrids are prefered for 2nd or 3rd stage int he realyl high power areana.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

i ama member of a rocketry organization at my school PSU

we build our own boosters and install them into our casements ourselves

these new laws dont affect us...

we ain't shipping them we make them ourselves

most of the other big hobbiests such as the rocket posted in this thread construct their own boosters.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Rocketboy]

The 62.5 gram restriction has been a fact of life for high-power rockets for years and we've learned to live with it under the former set of regulations. The current problem is that since BATF has classified the AP propellant as an explosive, anyone who touches it in the transport chain from manufacturer to end user has to have been trained, had a background check, etc. UPS, FedEx and the US Postal Service are *not* going to do that for tens of thousands of package handling and delivery people, any one of whom *might* touch a package of rocket motors at some time during their working lives. They just won't allow anyone to ship the stuff. We'll be able to legally make and use the stuff but we won't be able to ship it from the manufacturer to the end-user. This is not helpful. Worse, since AP won't explode and can't be made to explode no matter how hard you try (despite BATF's classification as an explosive,) we won't be any safer from 'terrorists' than we were before. Regulation for regulation's sake, not for any reasonable purpose.

I feel safer already. Incompetant nitwits.

Rocketboy

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[kireK]

He is corrext about AP being stable. I had a frined that use to use a big chunk of AP as an ashtray.

Now, if he was smoking thermolite.... well, it would have been an impressive roman candle.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[swb]

Wow, that's a huge freaking rocket. It looks about the same size as the ones you'd see on mobile launchers in the old red square parades.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do much reading, huh? As I remember, "not like you can't" is an idiomatic equivalent to "you can".

Stupid ACs.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[catsRus]

"Worse, since AP won't explode and can't be made to explode no matter how hard you try (despite BATF's classification as an explosive,) " I think there are some folks in Henderson, Nevada who would disagree with you, it was about 1987-88 when the factory there blew up it was a heck of a boom and I lived in NW Las Vegas. They moved the plant and it appears it has exploded again. http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/1997/Jul-31-Thu-1997 /news/5810376.html

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[PhilMills]

"Besides, it's not like you can't use more than one engine per rocket."

Ah, yes, the classic Slashdot answer: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those!

-PhilMills

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Oggust]

The hybrids use nytrous-oxide as a propelant, with a solid catalist. THe solid not actualyl being propelant. The synergy of the nitrus + catalist makes it stronger, faster, etc..

It is propellant. The solid part is the fuel, and the nitrous oxide is the oxidizer. Now, it's true that N20 is a decent monopropellant as well, and these motors have been described as "fuel-assisted monopropellant rockets". The good thing about them is that both propellants are inert, and hence fairly unregulated.

But hybrids require infrastructure, which is expensive, and solids are clearly the way to enter the hobby. We really need Enzi's exemption to pass!

If you're in the US, call or fax your senator!

The hybrids are prefered for 2nd or 3rd stage int he realyl high power areana.

I wouldn't say so, hybrids are a PITA for second stages, because they need to be filled from somewhere. The only system that's half-way usable for that is probably the little-used Aerotech hybrids with their pre-filled tanks. And maybe micro-hybrids, but they don't really count...

/August.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel safer already. Incompetant nitwits.

this explains every government official from the president down to your local city manager.

Why is it that we as a people vote in the nitwits? we are supposed to vote in the scientists and the brightest of all... not the absolute stupidest nitwits we can find.

Is there some kind of Joke I'm missing every election day?

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[Rocketboy]

Companies making black powder motors have burned in the past; I don't recall off the top of my head whether any exploded or not but if they did it wouldn't surprise me, black powder being what it is. Pretty safe in quantities of a few grams (as in your average Estes type model rocket motor), another beast when you manufacture the motors and have a few hundred pounds of the stuff around.

Aerotech burned down a while back; they manufacture composite (AP) motors. The fire started elsewhere in the plant and the local fire department came it and put it out. During follow-up operations the fire department hosed down a drum of magnesium powder. The powder was marked, had been reported to the fire department as required by local regulations, etc. but they hosed it down anyway. You do remember what happens when you dump a lot of water on magnesium powder, don't you?

AP doesn't explode but it will burn like crazy. That's what makes it such a good rocket fuel. Also, keep in mind that anything which will burn can generate an explosion if you confine the combustion products (gasses) properly. A firecracker explodes, a model rocket motor doesn't yet both are made from basically the same stuff. The difference is that the gasses produced by the burning black powder are confined in the case of the fire cracker and are not confined in the model rocket motor, which has a ceramic nozzle through which the gasses escape and produce the force (thrust) which causes the motor (and the attached rocket,) to move.

If you want to regulate a rapidly burning substance having a large energy content and the potential for making powerful explosives, look no further than your car's gas tank. The stuff used in rocket motors is very low energy compared to gasoline (or petrol, for those of you elsewhere.)

Rocketboy

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[vistas]

Let's correct some glaring technical errors. The hybrids use nitrous oxide as an OXIDISER (hint- it has "oxide" right there in the name!). The solid entity is indeed the fuel. however, the fuel in this case can be solid plastic, tightly rolled up paper, even a hard salami (yes, it's been done). All that's required is that it can burn and has mass.

Re:pretty obvious, don't you think?

[johnny cashed]

The AP plant in Nevade did explode. With shock waves no less. They were still cranking out AP for NASA after the Challenger accident (due to contractual obligations). They had a huge stockpile. There is nothing wrong with putting water on magnesium powder as long as said magnesium powder isn't burning at the time you hose it down. If it is burning, don't put water on it.

Mod the Python Story -1 Troll

[kalidasa]

Test: a Python story is a troll if it mentions Perl. Likewise, a Perl story is a troll if it mentions Python.

Substitute "vi" and "emacs" for "python" and "perl" and rerun.

Re:Mod the Python Story -1 Troll

[Paul Bain]

Uh, you forgot MySQL versus PostgreSQL, GNOME versus KDE, RPM versus .deb, etc.

Re:Mod the Python Story -1 Troll

[theperplepigg]

You forgot Microsoft vs. Linux. Or is that implied?

Re:Mod the Python Story -1 Troll

[Anonymous Coward]

A slashdot thread is a troll if it mentions slashdot.

Re:Mod the Python Story -1 Troll

[haystor]

MySQL is a troll all by itself since it brings out all the database bigots.

thank you for holding

[Anonymous Coward]

your call is important to us, and it will be answered in the order it was recieved. please continue to hold, and a representative will be with you shortly.

Arguably

[consumer]

This is what bugs me about the

those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm launching rockets in my own damned backyard, then the spooks can suck it like George W. Cocksucker. Fuck 'em. It ain't a free country anymore, but I can still pretend (until Georgie decides outlaws thought-crime, in the name of Homeland "Security," anyways).

Any takers on my bet that Iraq will be more free than Amerikkka in 5 years?

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of moron are you? There are about a million things you cannot do in your backyard because they are illegal.

If this is supposed to be a troll, you need a lot more practice.

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[CaptainCarrot]

I shouldn't feed the troll, but RTFA anyway. Unless your backyard is on the order of a square mile in size, the model rockets you're most probably launching from it aren't covered by the new regulations. Engine sizes A through D are well under the 62.5 gm limit. You need to be using size G engines before you run into a problem, but you need a considerably larger field than the average backyard to launch anything that would require them.

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[lbonser]

I know people who routinely launch H, I, J, K, L, and M engines every weekend... Check out the Tripoli website for more about high-powered model rocketry. www.tripoli.org

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[guile*fr]

with a name like that they are likely to raise interest from U.S gvt :)

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[Anonymous Coward]

Size of your backyard has little to do with being able to launch a rocket of any size...

This is about treating people who have been enjoying a hobby for years like criminals and subjecting them to more taxation for the sake of "National Security"

Now not only will you need to get your fingerprints for owning NFA firearms but for high powered rocketry.

Hopefully they'll tax having sex next! Require you need to get your fingerprints taken and have a background check for that too.

H00RaY!@

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[CaptainCarrot]

Size of your backyard has little to do with being able to launch a rocket of any size...

It does if that's where you're launching them from, as the original poster indicated he was. You need a certain amount of clear space to do this safely, and the amount of space you need increases with the potential altitude of the rocket. It would require a very large backyard indeed to safely launch a rocket powered by an H engine.

Frankly, I have little sympathy for the complaint here. When I got into model rocketry about 30 years ago as a kid growing up in New Jersey, you needed a state-issued permit to purchase even the smaller Estes engines. (And this permit could only be issued to an adult, so my dad had to apply for it and buy all my engines for me.) A background check is something almost anyone who gets a mission-critical tech job has to undergo these days, I don't see the prospect of fingerprinting deterring many people from getting drivers' licenses, and a $25 fee isn't very large considering the other expenses associated with a hobby like model rocketry. This is simply not a level of intrusiveness we find objectionable in many other contexts.

And if you think they don't tax sex already, you've obviously never applied for a marriage license...

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[adri]

Marriage? Sex?

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[CaptainCarrot]

Usually, yes. Before you have kids, anyway. Then you're too tired.

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[sjames]

The issue isn't the permit or the fingerprinting (though nobody actually likes those things), it's that the new rules mean the larger engines can't be shipped (since no carrier is likely to have every employee who might touch the package get a $25 license, training, background check, and fingerprinting).

So imagine that license your dad had to get, throw in needing to drive across several states and back to buy the engines. Sure, the a-d engines won't be an issue, but as hobbiests grow up, they're going to want to build significant payloads (such as cameras that can take more than 8 grainy frames in flight), more complex and heavier designs, and fly higher. That's going to be impossible except for the few who want to take cross country car trips on a regular basis, or make the things in their garage (probably illegal for other reasons in most places).

The sad part is that this will do NOTHING to improve homeland security. It's just a bunch of beurocrats who want to keep up appearances, and scoff at the 'American Way of Life'.

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[CaptainCarrot]

Nor do I disagree with you. But again, I was replying to what seemed to be the core objection in the original troll, which was more about being told what he could and could not do in his own "backyard" than about the wider effects of the regulation. I like to think that ultimately sense will prevail here. Model rocketry hobbyists don't, I imagine, constitute a very large lobby, but I wonder to what extent the new regs affect, say, black powder shooters. Will they be able to purchase black powder by mail, and it will it be allowed to be shipped to sporting goods stores in the quantities in which it's normally purchased? I imagine that if all the affected groups got together, they'd be able to have a beneficial effect.

Re:those gov't hacks can suck it hard

[sjames]

The black powder shooters are probably out of luck as well. I agree that there's a good common cause there.

The original comment about back yard was without a doubt, hyperbolie, but expresses a valid emotional reaction to the way government regulation affects the hobby. I can't think of many Americans who actually want their life to become more constrained.

People that prefer python to perl?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you mean people that don't prefer perl to python? Or, actually, why even bring perl into it unless you believe it's superior (and thus someone is making some sort of odd choice in not using it!). And, what about PHP? Why no mention of that?

Re:People that prefer python to perl?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because PHP is an abomination that should have been put down before it was a glint in the milkman's eye.

Re:People that prefer python to perl?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone sounds scared of the Zend engine!!!!!

I can see the headline now...

[horse_pheathers]

I can see the headline now:
"Model Rocketry Enthusiasts' Hobby Goes Up in Smoke...."

I'll bet that pun goes over some people's heads.....

-- Horse_Pheathers

Re:I can see the headline now...

[Anonymous Coward]

How could it possibly?

Well yeah, actually, I think the majority of /.ers are 4 years old so you may be right.

Re:I can see the headline now...

[horse_pheathers]

And the second pun goes over yours....;)

-- Horse_Pheathers

Re:I can see the headline now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Na, it just never got off the ground.

Re:I can see the headline now...

[slide-rule]

I can see the headline now:
"Model Rocketry Enthusiasts' Hobby Goes Up in Smoke...."

Yeah, I'm sure we're all just counting down the seconds until that one takes off. ;-)

SAFE AT LAST!

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

Being a New Yorker, I am so very glad that: "62.5 grams. That's the largest amount of propellant a single model rocket engine can have in it and still be exempt from a new set of federal rules".

Because now it is impossible for a Terrorist or Open Source contributor to make any weapons! I mean shit, to get 125 grams of powder you would have to cut open two tubes, and that's like, harder than hell to do. Thank you, my precious Government, I will sleep soundly tonight.

Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[nweaver]

Any language which uses whitespace as a semantic meaning beyond simply breaking tokens is BAD BAD BAD. To do otherwise, even in the name of "readability" is a total crock of shit.

This is especially true when one wants to have programs output code, adding whitespace is extra crapola. Given any other blocking device (eg, {}s, ()s), one can write editor/prittyprinters to reformat code for easy readability.

Using whitespace as semantic information is a big big BUG, and stating otherwise is simply delusional.

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahaha

You've obviously never used it.

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[pnatural]

I'll bite, troll!

We will perhaps eventually be writing only small modules which are identified by name as they are used to build larger ones, so that devices like indentation, rather than delimiters, might become feasible for expressing local structure in the source language.

--Donald E. Knuth, "Structured Programming with goto Statements", Computing Surveys, Vol 6 No 4, Dec. 1974

Or put more simply: Free your mind, and your code will follow.

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[powderfinger]

Wgu don't you just try Python. Everybody thinks this for at least eerrr... 5 minutes, then there is that moment of epiphany!

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Mkay

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought pretty much the same thing, until i actually tried writing some python. takes about 20 minutes of hacking out some code of your own, then you no longer notice the whole whitespace thing at all. give it a whirl - after all, you're already indenting your code properly, right? well, writing python is just like that, except you don't bother with the curly braces. that's the whole difference.

code-writing code is a special case not worth optimizing for. by far most of the code that actually matters (including, most especially, any and all code-writing code) is written by humans, so naturally languages should be optimized for readability to humans rather than ease of printing by machines. but that goes without saying; if it were ever otherwise, we'd all still be writing machine code directly.

and other than that one special case, your entire argument would seem to rest on... um, nothing whatsoever. except your own personal dislike, which you're welcome to and which is perfectly valid - but it doesn't prove anything to anybody other than yourself.

now, that's not to say this feature of python's is all good and wonderful. there's one big backdraw to it, which i can't make any excuses for - with no explicit block delimiters in the language, you can no longer use % to jump betwen block start/endpoints in vi. that, i do miss when coding python.

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used Occam, and the whitespace "feature" was a major distraction and a common source of error in the edit-compile_fix_the_dammed_whitespace-compile cycle.
I never liked it, and none of the guys on our team liked it, either.

For very long blocks (that required scrolling, at least) and those with many conditional statements, it could get very ugly trying to figure out if the indentations were correct.

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[SuperDuperMan]

I like Python and I agree that the whitespace having any meaning other than readability is bad. Brackets are easier to deal with than all the indentation level problems I've encountered in Python.

It's especially bad when your idea of what a tab is (ie 8 characters) vs mine (4) is.

I also don't like the tendency to output extra spaces in your output for you. I know there are ways to avoid it but it's not something you should have to avoid.

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[Xtifr]

after all, you're already indenting your code properly, right?

No, I'm not. My editor does a fine job of keeping track of such tedious details for me. (At least when I'm working in C/C++/Java/Perl/Tcl/Lisp/etc.) Of course, my editor also does a fairly good job of handling proper indentation for python too; in effect, I use TAB and BS as my block delimiters, and it all mostly just works.

Basically, with C/Perl/whatever, if my indenting is messed up, then I know my block delimiters are messed up somewhere, so I look, and fix the problem. With python, if my indenting is messed up, then I know my indenting is messed up somewhere, so I look and fix the problem. It can be a little more tedious to fix in python sometimes, since the editor can't just automatically re-indent the section properly, but most of the time (say, 99.9%), it's just a matter of sliding a chuck of code left or right, which is no problem.

What I think it boils down to is: if you're using decent tools, python is really neither better nor worse (as far as the whole indent/whitespace matter is concerned) -- merely different. As with many technical matters, this one is given far too much importance both by python's fans and its detractors.

with no explicit block delimiters in the language, you can no longer use % to jump betwen block start/endpoints in vi.

Yup. Although I'd like to say that anyone using vi for programming should be beaten severely until they switch to vim! :)

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[Ilan Volow]

It was the same case for me.

For the first several weeks of python coding, the use of whitespace bothered me, and then I got used to it.

I fully switched from Perl to python when I realized that all the Perl programmers who try to make all their stuff fit on one line and who pride themselves on showing off their knowledge of Perl's terse syntaxes and weird implicit behavior at the expense of other people who try to understand their code bothered me far, far more.

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[eli173]

with no explicit block delimiters in the language, you can no longer use % to jump betwen block start/endpoints in vi. that, i do miss when coding python.

Turn on indent folding, such as:
:set foldcolumn=4
:set foldmethod=indent

This will create folds for each python block. Then use [z to go to the beginning of the fold, and ]z to go to the end of the fold.
Yeah, it's not quite as handy as %, but you may find it helpful.

And if you are not familiar with folding, you really should look into it.
Try ':help fold'

HTH,

Eli

Re:Whitespace BAD, Mkay...

[random_static]

Turn on indent folding, such as:
:set foldcolumn=4
:set foldmethod=indent

sorry for the caps lock, but THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!! you've changed my default vim configuration settings!

Shoot to kill

[The Bungi]

Clearly, the reporter did not climb that fence. [...] It's unlikely the reporter would be prosecuted for trespassing; the Laboratory does not have law enforcement authority to prosecute, and none of the proper authorities witnessed the trespass

I was the impression (probably because of one of those feverish Discovery marathons I tend to engage in when I get tired of coding) that the nice folks who guard US installations that contain either nuclear weapons of nuclear materials are allowed under federal mandate to shoot to kill. In fact that's what the warning messages posted along the fences of those facilities read - "lethal force authorized" or some such.

If that's the case Mr. Wired there (let's uncover the government's stupidity, for liberals everywhere!) was lucky he just stepped on some cow dung, as opposed to getting a 5.56 round in the chest.

Re:Shoot to kill

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I was the impression (probably because of one of those feverish Discovery marathons I tend to engage in when I get tired of coding) that the nice folks who guard US installations that contain either nuclear weapons of nuclear materials are allowed under federal mandate to shoot to kill.

A former boss of mine once did a project at Lawrence Livermore, upgrading some of the remote detectors from '50s era electronics to more modern stuff. He told me his (Q?) clearance came up for renewal about a week before project completion. Rather than go to the trouble to renew it for that duration they fell back on an alternate waiver procedure.

As a result, all the while he was working on site there was an armed guard (uniformed military) about two paces away from him. The armed guard, continuously, had his left hand on his holstered pistol, his right hand extended (to fend off my ex-boss should he suddenly attack, giving him time to draw the pistol), and kept his eyes on my ex-boss constantly.

For > 8 hours per day.

My ex-boss had had it explained that, if the guard killed him - even due to halucinating an attack - he would NOT be brought up on charges, while if the guard DIDN'T shoot him in case of trouble he WOULD be brought up on charges. And that the guard knew this.

Needless to say this was a very stressful environment. And he did his best to finish the project before the guard decided to relieve the cramp in his right arm by plugging him. B-)

Re:Shoot to kill

[The Snowman]

I was the impression (probably because of one of those feverish Discovery marathons I tend to engage in when I get tired of coding) that the nice folks who guard US installations that contain either nuclear weapons of nuclear materials are allowed under federal mandate to shoot to kill. In fact that's what the warning messages posted along the fences of those facilities read - "lethal force authorized" or some such.

True. When defending nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, deadly force is authorized. Shoot first, ask questions later. I do not know if this is true for security that is contracted out, but I do know for a fact that for military personnel (such as myself) it is true. And just in case you think that the U.S. government does not have chemical or biological weapons, think again. We have tons more than Saddam. Maybe the U.N. will come knocking on the White House door to inspect and disarm next?

Re:Shoot to kill

[usmcpanzer]

was the impression (probably because of one of those feverish Discovery marathons I tend to engage in when I get tired of coding) that the nice folks who guard US installations that contain either nuclear weapons of nuclear materials are allowed under federal mandate to shoot to kill. In fact that's what the warning messages posted along the fences of those facilities read - "lethal force authorized" or some such.

Your correct. In the rules of engagement in the military for use of dealy force (I have to have the class every year)are the most lax for shooting is around nuclear installations. If someone is near a nuke and isn't suppose to be there, shoot him. If terroists kidnap a kindergaurden bus and had them with them, they're just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:Shoot to kill

[dmanny]

I knew a couple of young men who were truckers in Western Kansas/Oklahoma who undertook a sub-contract to deliver some sort of ammunition to a federal depot. They encountered the same type of accompanied treatment although in their case it was not handguns but M-16's. The guns were not actually pointed at them, just held at the ready.

The last I heard, they never did another trip.

Re:Shoot to kill

[bm_luethke]

I've been on a tour of Y-12 national security plant (one of the original manhattan project sites that created the fissionable material). One of the areas we were not allowed to go to (we only could even look at it becuase we were Oak Ridge National Labs employees and had gone through rudimentary clearance already) was a 25 foot tall fence with another few feet of barbed wire, about a 10 foot gap of rock with a small path through it, followed by another fence. At each corner of the structure was a hardened machine gun bunker (manned, we were not told if there were anything under the rocks). We were told any unauthorized entrance would be killed. No idea what was in the building (I always wondered if the stupid answer we give was true in this case - "If I told you I would have to kill you").

Re:Shoot to kill

[flsniper]

BULLSHIT!!!!

Re:Shoot to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

We admit to having both, and we're in the process of destroying them (such as at the Umatilla Chemical Weapons Depot (couldn't find an offical military link).

(posting anonymously because I already moderated here.)

Re:Shoot to kill

[CentrX]

"...kidnap a kindergarten bus and had them with them, you're just in the wrong place..."

huh?

Aliens, give us back our CmdrTaco!

[WIAKywbfatw]

It's obvious that Taco's been abducted by aliens and that they've substituted a doppleganger in his place.

Unfortunately for the aliens, spotting their ruse was too easy - their double recently posted several new stories on /. and none of them were dupes.

OK, we all know that Taco's a royal PITA but he's our royal PITA. We want him back. You can keep Glenn Miller though.

Re:Aliens, give us back our CmdrTaco!

[Anonymous Coward]

Murphy: I knew this day would come, dopplegangners..

Stormy: Hey, we're not dopplegangers.

Murphy: Tell it to queen Dopple-Poppleous.

*Marco hits Stormy over the head with a wrench*

Re:Aliens, give us back our CmdrTaco!

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, talk about getting bitchslapped for making a joke. And I thought Homeland Security was bad.

Re:Aliens, give us back our CmdrTaco!

[neric]

I love Sealab 2021.

Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[Frater 219]

I like Python. I also like Perl. I think it's rather silly that people read these two as mutually exclusive. Both languages have their strengths.

• Perl is fast. There's no two ways about it -- Perl's code base has pretty obviously been heavily optimized, and programs written in it tend to be amazingly fast, especially considering that they are being bytecode-compiled rather than compiled to native code.
• Python is more readable. Past a certain degree of complexity of operations, Perl code starts to look like noise; Python code doesn't. Perl mongers tout the expressiveness of their language, but Pythonistas note theirs' readability.
• Perl is amazing for quick 'n dirty text processing. I wouldn't think of using Python when what I want to do is translate among document formats. That is Perl's native land -- where it ably and easily supplanted earlier Unix tools such as sed and awk, and remains in the forefront.
• Python deals better with complicated data structures. Ever read the perllol manpage? When you start to deal with nested structures in Perl, you have to play silly buggers with references, and if you do the wrong thing, you get ARRAY(0x6590) instead of your data. Python copes sanely with complex expressions and never gives you nonsense like that.
• Both Python and Perl have lots of modules handy. CPAN is hugely impressive. So is the Python standard library.
• Both Python and Perl speak the Web's languages fluently. The fact that both are embeddable as Apache modules (mod_perl and mod_python) should say enough -- but both can also parse HTML, XML, or what-have-you.
• Perl is great on the command line. There are so many ideas in text transformation that can be expressed in a single line of Perl -- no need to comment it, it's just a one-liner! -- and that can be quickly put to use in ordinary systems administration via perl -e.
• Python is great on the interactive top-level. Need to debug a Python module? Start Python in interactive mode, import the module, and start introspecting.
• Perl has plenty of room for your own style. This is a language whose possible syntax is huger than anyone has bothered to describe. If you learn it intimately, you can say exactly what you want in a minimum of bytes. There's a reason Perl fans like one-liners: the language is perfect for them.
• Python makes modularity and object-orientation make sense. In Perl, OOP is kind of a bag on the side, an extra feature tossed in to make modules easier to use. In Java, OOP is a Soviet political officer constantly intruding in your work and making sure you comply with the Party's way of doing things. In Python, OOP is just the way things work: everything's an object and it just makes sense.

Me? I use bash for one-liners, Perl for ten-liners, and Python for thousand-liners.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[Bishop]

Eric S. Raymond has written one of the better Python advocacy articles. His experiences with Python are similar to Frater's. Python has replaced C as my general purpose language of choice.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[powderfinger]

Amen brother!

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric S. Raymond has written one of the better Python advocacy articles.

That's enough for me. Perl it is.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[Un pobre guey]

Python makes modularity and object-orientation make sense. In Perl, OOP is kind of a bag on the side, an extra feature tossed in to make modules easier to use. In Java, OOP is a Soviet political officer constantly intruding in your work and making sure you comply with the Party's way of doing things. In Python, OOP is just the way things work: everything's an object and it just makes sense.

C++ is a scrawny, bald, naked saint in a loincloth who lives in a crumbling adobe hut where the desert and the jungle meet. He speaks in terse riddles, that expand out into pages of text if you bother to solve them. He can do the work of ten engineers and a hundred strong laborers merely by tapping his staff on the ground and shouting cryptic epithets.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

Everytime I think Slashdot has lost all value, someone actually bothers to post a thoughtful, well-reasoned, unbiased, and insightful comment.

Thanks a lot, Frater 219, for ensuring that I will continue to bother wasting my time sorting through all the trolls, teens, and alpha-geek-wannabes.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[Frater 219]

C++ is a scrawny, bald, naked saint in a loincloth who lives in a crumbling adobe hut where the desert and the jungle meet. He speaks in terse riddles, that expand out into pages of text if you bother to solve them. He can do the work of ten engineers and a hundred strong laborers merely by tapping his staff on the ground and shouting cryptic epithets.

So tell me about C++ templates. In Python, we get generic functions by using dynamic typing, rather than putting a whole 'nother alien Turing-complete language in the compiler.

For the lurkers: "Generic programming" is the idea that when you make a class to represent a generic data structure -- like, say, a stack -- it should be instantiable as a stack of integers, a stack of strings, or any other particular data type.

In C++, you do generic programming by writing template functions, into which the compiler fills in the types you need. This is basically a fancy sort of preprocessing. However, template syntax is thoroughly alien to the C roots of C++, and as it turns out can be used to do surprisingly maniacal things. See the links above for the curiously shaped results.

In Python, as in Lisp and other dynamically typed languages, generic programming just kinda falls out of the way the language works. If you make a data structure, by default it can hold more or less any type of object. There's actually a limitation in Python here, though. In earlier versions, a lot of data structures, like dictionaries (hash tables), could only hold immutable values as their keys. (Immutables aren't exactly constants -- they're values that can't be edited in place. You can't edit the string value "foo" in Python, any more than you can change what the number 2 means.) Nowadays, any object that implements the protocol for hashability can be used as a key.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[pyite]

And this is the product of CS majors switching to an English major. =P

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[Un pobre guey]

So tell me about C++ templates

Funny you should mention that. I was reading Andrei Alexandrescu's Modern C++ Design, a perverse festival of C++ templates, as I read your post!

BTW, the bald, naked saint would rap your knuckles with his staff for using the less type-safe python.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[drinkypoo]

Is mod_python any better than mod_perl? mod_perl is an inefficient unreliable hunk of crap.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insert funny joke here involving a pompous self-proclaimed software spokesman and a computer language.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[rasactive]

From the man that brought you Intercal... 20 second wait thing is retarded.

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[wisse]

Exactly. One wonders what it is about Python that
turns so many of its users into anti-Perlers. Are
they obliged to renounce Perl before they can
install? Interestingly the Perl users are not so
obsessed with conversion of "them"

And I use emacs to type my Perl scripts. Never cared
much for vi. Strange people too, those vi-users.
(Please do not take these lines too seriously)

Re:Python is not just an alternative to Perl.

[sludg-o]

Perl is great on the command line. There are so many ideas in text
transformation that can be expressed in a single line of Perl

A skilled PERL coder can write anything in one line. The secret is to start sufficiently far to the left.

Egads!

[The Bungi]

Python is a language that is just as old, and arguably better from

Welcome to Perlandia. Didja bring your toothbrush, toilet paper and asbestos suit?

But seriously, we go back to the whole whitespace thing... I think Python is essentially a "cleaner" language but that just kills it for me. It's not more readable if you're used to block-oriented languages to begin with. Possibly for newbies.

Dunno. I get turned off to think that if I miss a tab somewhere I'll get a compiler error. A brace, sure. But whitespace??

Re:Egads!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll get an interpreter (runtime) error, and so what, whitespace or curly brace, it's still an error indicating you messed up a block of statements by not properly closing it or opening it.

Re:Egads!

[ArmyOfFun]

Yea, it's weird if you're used to another language. But if you're used to indenting your code, there really isn't much of a leap from other languages.

Re:Egads!

[Moses Lawn]

Yes, but this should be a compile-time error, as opposed to possibly catching in sometime in the field.

Re:Egads!

[Chmarr]

The lack or addition of a tab in Python usually DOES result in a compile time error (well, as compile-time as scripting languages go... you can run 'compileall.py' on your .py files as a check, too).

There are some cases where it doesn't. ie, if you've forgotten to indend the last like of an IF block, then that line will be excecuted outside of the IF. However, if you just LOOK AT your code, it's bloody obvious what's going on. This is no different than, say, forgetting to put braces after an IF in C, or some other gaff.

-- Used perl, tried python, switched, never looked back.

Re:Egads!

[the_Speed_Bump]

I dunno if this is what you're getting at, but I thought I'd clear up a misconception that I see every now and again.

Python doesn't care how much you indent. Just that you indent and dedent consistently. If you have an if block that's indented 14 spaces, power to you, as long as you go back to where you were when the if block is done. Similarly, there's no hard-tab/soft-tab issue; use whichever you want.

Re:Egads!

[Flarelocke]

Dunno. I get turned off to think that if I miss a tab somewhere I'll get a compiler error. A brace, sure. But whitespace??

I didn't like it either, at first. Then I got used to it. Then I really liked it.

In, let's say, C (I don't know Perl very well), an if statement can be followed by a single statement or a block in braces. To, lets say, add debugging information, one has to enclose the statement in braces. In Python, one needs only to add more statements.

Also, the structure of the code is automatically visible, and errors in indentation stick out like a sore thumb. It's much harder to tell with braces. (especially with the optional braces that C has)

If you use Vi, vi displays the tabs with the same number of spaces as Python equates with them (by default, anyway).

The delimiter symbols ({}, [], () ) are reserved for container data structures instead of syntax. {} denotes a dictionary, [] a list (variable length array), and () a tuple (fixed length array; also used for function calls). This makes the syntax for manipulating data structures cleaner and simpler.

I'm not really a newbie (4 or 5 years coding C) at C/C++, but it's still more readable. Instead of adopting coding styles that make it easy to make sure that all our braces match (while throwing away vertical screen space), we should adopt languages that make it not matter.

Re:Egads!

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, here's the deal on whitespace. When i write code and i want a quick'n'dirty debug, i put my printf() in aligned to the far-left margin, no matter how deep indented i am. That way i can look at the rest of the code and just do /^print to find my debug point again. Or /^print/d to delete it. If i'm coding C and therefore don't have any "private" or "protected" modifiers it's just a matter of doing /^p. When your debug printf() is indented the same as the rest of your code it's really easy to leave them floating around in a routine that isn't called very often. So much for "neat" programming. What, you want me to use an #ifdef? Sorry, Python doesn't do that either. How about a regular if statement checking against a debug variable? Fine if performance doesn't matter, but if you're writing tight code superfluous if statements that are only positive during debugging are a wasted of a few clock cycles. I'm sorry, but enforcing whitespace is just a bad idea. If they wanted to lose the braces they could always have gone with Pascal's "begin" and "end".

Re:Egads!

[The Bungi]

Dunno. I've used it on and off for a few years and I still have trouble following the code. Not that I don't understand it, just that it's... weird. Too many years of block languages, I suppose.

Re:Egads!

[ArmyOfFun]

Too many years of block languages, I suppose.

That could be it, but what I think it boils down to is taste or personality. For me, I found Python strange at first, but after just a short while, I found it natural to program in Python, it fits with my brain for some reason.

Not that it isn't fun to watch people scream at each other about which language they like better...

Re:Egads!

[ProfKyne]

Dunno. I get turned off to think that if I miss a tab somewhere I'll get a compiler error. A brace, sure. But whitespace??

You shouldn't be using tabs in the first place, you should be using spaces. This is a pretty-near unanimous coding convention. And you won't "miss" a space since you'll instantly see that your code isn't lining up properly. Trust me, the Python whitespace thing takes about fifteen seconds to get used to.

And yes, you can still do one-line if blocks:

foo = 1
if foo: print bar

Embedding Python

[graveyhead]

I think part of the reason Python is so popular is that it is extremely easy to embed it in a C language application. It really changes your view of coding an application: organize everything into low-level highly optimized C code and high-level Python code. Your C language application becomes a toolbox of functionality available from Python. This approach makes your application totally scriptable by default. I usually take this architecture one step further and create an even higher level, eaiser to use interface purely in Python.

Re:Embedding Python

[The Bungi]

That much is true. Check out WinCVS for an excellent example. I'm constantly amazed at what that thing can do.

Re:Embedding Python

[Tmack]

And perl cant do that? IIRC perl is written in C and can be (somewhat) easily be converted into something useable for other C programs and vise-versa (embeded perl).

T

Re:Embedding Python

[Jellybob]

Yes, but the point is that Python is *designed* to be embedded, you don't have to hack it, you just have to read the documentation.

Re:Embedding Python

[Anonymous Coward]

Having written C extensions for both Python and Perl (and loving both languages, I might add), I have to say that what you suggest is possible, but painful.

One of the major frustrations that Guido had with the ABC language (a project he worked on prior to Python) was that it was hard to extend the language; to add new modules and functionality. So, when he set out to develop Python, he took great care to ensure that there was a sane, understandable API for C programmers.

Perl is good, don't get me wrong. But the C interface is so complex that you have to use a third language (XS) just to describe how your C code interfaces with Perl-- which makes development and maintenance all a LOT harder. XS doesn't offer the same ease of integration as Python's C API; sorry, but it's the truth.

Besides, the original poster didn't say that Perl can't be extended or embedded. He was commenting on a great feature of the Python language, not bashing Perl. If he's a good programmer, he realizes that BOTH languages have their place-- just as you should realize.

Re:Embedding Python

[jericho4.0]

You can embed python in C in about 5 minutes, to the point where you can start calling python with lines of python in your code. A less trivial embedding is almost as easy. Perl doesn't come close.

Re:Embedding Python

[Ian Bicking]

It's also easy to do it the other way around, to make a Python module out of some code written in another language (usually C/C++). Writing something from scratch in C is a great way to boost performance of your Python application -- take some important inner loops and write them in C, then use them from Python. And the ease of wrapping external libraries means that Python has a lot of very up-to-date access to external libraries.

Re:Embedding Python

[aleph]

To be fair I think that Tcl championed the embeddable scripting language long before Python came along. At least I don't remember Python being around 10 years ago. One of the original ideas behind Tcl was that it should be embedded in applications like word processors to make them more powerful. You were supposed to be able to bring up a Tcl prompt in your application, and just start customizing. This model leads to the approach of separating mechanism from policy. Mechanism is the low level primitives of your code, and that gets written in a low-level, optimized, compiled language (e.g. C, C++). Policy is how your program works, its interface and tools. That goes in a high level, interpreted, scripting language (e.g. Tcl, perl, Python, etc.) that can make calls on the low level primitives. I guess this is all pretty standard today, but I remember it seeming rather impressive in 1992. I think one of my main complaints with Java is that it doesn't provide a high-level, fast and loose scripting environment suitable for writing policy and interface code.

Anyhoo, not to complicate the argument too much. If Python has taken the embeddable mantle of Tcl, it may be largely because Python embraced OO and threads more completely.

Re:Embedding Python

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, here's the deal on whitespace. When i write code and i want a quick'n'dirty debug, i put my printf() in aligned to the far-left margin, no matter how deep indented i am. That way i can look at the rest of the code and just do /^print to find my debug point again. Or /^print/d to delete it. If i'm coding C and therefore don't have any "private" or "protected" modifiers it's just a matter of doing /^p. When your debug printf() is indented the same as the rest of your code it's really easy to leave them floating around in a routine that isn't called very often. So much for "neat" programming. What, you want me to use an #ifdef? Sorry, Python doesn't do that either. How about a regular if statement checking against a debug variable? Fine if performance doesn't matter, but if you're writing tight code superfluous if statements that are only positive during debugging are a wasted of a few clock cycles. I'm sorry, but enforcing whitespace is just a bad idea. If they wanted to lose the braces they could always have gone with Pascal's "begin" and "end".

Re:Embedding Python

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh, replied to the wrong thread, sorry.

Re:Embedding Python

[Matts]

That's provably false. In perl it's 5 minutes too:

#include <EXTERN.h>
#include <perl.h>

static PerlInterpreter *my_perl;

int main(int argc, char **argv, char **env)
{
my_perl = perl_alloc();
perl_construct(my_perl);
perl_parse(my_perl, NULL, argc, argv, (char**)NULL);
perl_run(my_perl);
perl_destruct(my_perl);
perl_free(my_perl);
}

And compile with:

cc -o interp interp.c `perl -MExtUtils::Embed -e ccopts -e ldopts`

It's really that simple. Now this used to be harder, but it's really not any more.

Re:Embedding Python

[Ian Bicking]

The real issue isn't embedding the interpreter so much as interacting with the interpreter. For instance, calling hooks in the code (probably in response to events), making application data and functions available to scripts, handling errors, etc.

I don't know what that looks like in Perl -- maybe it's all quite reasonable, though Perl semantics seem to be very complex which would seem to make it more difficult.

Shortsighted and foolish...

[GeneralEmergency]

.

Placing restrictions upon any technology hobby in the name of "combating terrorism" is folly of the highest order and constitutes blindingly stupid public policy.

We face a future where people who hate us because of our freedoms can and will attack us at will with amazingly ordinary implements used in novel ways. Without marching out into the world and killing all of these people "pre-emptively", our only realistic option is to improve our remote sensing (intelligence) technologies to find them before they become real, active threats. But developing these technologies is real hard work, involving cutting edge sciences and technologies... and having the largest possible national crop of young people exited about science is absolutely essential to our future national security.

I am a software engineer today BECAUSE of my early experiences with model rocketry and model airplanes and because they taught me how things worked and fired my imagination about what could be possible in the future.

We've heard NASA lament lately about how hard it is becoming to find qualified graduates to staff even entry level engineering and science positions. Public policies that throttle modeling technology hobbies will only exacerbate this problem into the future and good people will die needlessly as a result.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[Anonymous Coward]

where people who hate us because of our freedoms

Yeeeesssshhhh, get real dude - the modern US of A has less freedoms than a fair chunk of the "Western" world. People 'hate' you because you continue to yell at the top of your lungs that you are the "World's Greatest Country" when the rest of us can clearly see that you are not!

That, and doing as a nation what you as a nation would not tolerate from anyone else (while convieniently forgetting the whole "Rule of Law" thing) when it comes to your own self interest; Why are you (as a nation) so surprised that you are not winning any friends outside your own borders!

Hell, you even live in a Republic (OK, Democratic Republic, but Republic none-the-less) that you kid yourselves into thinking is a real Democracy (There is a very big difference between the two, if you'd care to do any research). Talk about delusional......

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[msimm]

Placing restrictions upon any technology hobby in the name of "combating terrorism" is folly of the highest order and constitutes blindingly stupid public policy.

Ya, and? We are going to have to ride this one out, but to be honest this administration has really raised the bar of "folly of the highest order" and this one just doesn't pass. I mean its dumb, but just like dumb, dumb. Sorry mate.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[drinkypoo]

It's similar to a tendency which is spreading rapidly across the U.S. in this time of recession, which is to spend for today and ignore tomorrow. While this is common any time you are in bad sorts, it's the worst time for it, because if you don't think of the long view, you will only stay in business in the long term by luck as you will be unprepared. As such companies are cutting back on R&D (except those which focus on it as a means of pushing their business, IBM is my favorite example, and so was Xerox before they started looking for buyers for PARC) to save money now - but they won't have anything to sell later.

This is the same situation. They're doing things to make it easier to track down actual criminals now - a law like this will probably do that! - but they are neglecting to notice the probable negative effects down the road.

It's looking more and more like time to move to some other country. I love America, but I fear my government's lack of morality and despise its lack of sense. Or do I have that backwards? I guess it works either way 'round. Of course that raises the question of where to go. Canada is too close to the U.S., if major problems occur it won't be safe, especially considering certain abundant natural resources which they have (wood, mostly) which we have already depleted. If your technological level falls far enough, you're going to need a lot of wood to get anything done. Alaska would be all right since no one will really notice what you're doing up there anyway, but it's still subject to stupid laws. Maybe the best way is just to move someplace totally lawless, at least you'll have a good idea where you stand.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[nerdguy0]

Without marching out into the world and killing all of these people "pre-emptively", our only realistic option is to improve our remote sensing (intelligence) technologies to find them before they become real, active threats.

Perhaps instead of inventing some new miracle technology to stop attacks, we could maybe, possibly change our policy so that they don't feel compelled to sacrifice their lives to run planes into our buildings.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[MegaHamsterX]

Ok, I agree, I'll see you down at the mosque for your conversion.

BTW, the typical American Muslim faith isn't going to cut it, we'd all need to be hardline ultra orthadox muslims. (American Muslims are in some deep shit now with everyone looking at them as if they might be in a sleeper cell)

THAT is the only policy that will work, faith isn't something that can be changed by policy, it is instilled as a core value from childhood.

This strife has been brewing for thousands of years, the only difference between now and then is the technology.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[Degrees]

Yes, and "well, probably not."

Yes, al-Queda did the terrorist thing for mortal revenge because of our treatment of the Afghan freedom fighters after they kicked the USSR's butt on our behalf. You could almost hear Nelson from The Simpsons cry out "Ha-ha", and Bart mutter "Suckers". So you are correct, changing our policy of messing with other people's lives could keep things like September 11 from happening in the future.

On the other hand, Iraq is a completely different situation. With WMD, Saddam has an extortion tool that he can use - cave to his demands, or we lose Cleveland. He wants money, he wants assets un-frozen, he wants us to abandon our support of Israel, and he will want us to sit on our hands when he and his friends invade their neighbors. Don't like it? Lose Miami, too.

So I agree with you that the September 11 bombings were largely our State Department and Presidents' (past and present) fault. But I also (now) see that there is a wealthy, dangerous man fueled by greed that is a truly large problem.

The original post said this:

Placing restrictions upon any technology hobby in the name of "combating terrorism" is folly of the highest order and constitutes blindingly stupid public policy.

I'll go one better: the anti-terror junk is such blindingly stupid policy, that I decided to turn off the TV every time I saw George Bush trying to pitch his plan for anything. Literally, if the current administration pitched it, it must be blindingly stupid, so turn it off.

How am I supposed to reconcile the following? Immediately after September 11, George Bush said "If we allow ourselves to get caught up in a life of fear, then the terrorists have already won." Compare that to the Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, TIA, and ... classifying two ounce model rocket engines as explosives.

sigh.

I sure hope George Bush feels like the boy crying wolf right now.

So your basic premise is correct: don't piss them off, and they won't feel the need to hurt you. Unfortunately, being only good + helpful doesn't remove the ability of a career criminal to ply even more of his trade.

For my .sig below, notice its says "jerk" not "criminal."

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only "freedom" they hate is the freedom of US companies to make profits where ever they please and damn the consequences.

And until you learn that people have rights even wehen they are not US citizens, you are going to have to live in fear of the next jet or bomb or whatever.

Sucks to be you, eh?

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[sjames]

Personally, I don't buy that hate us for our freedon line.

However, the feds are pushing it (and may even believe it). It seems they have decided to solve the problem by wiping out the freedom themselves. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if the objective of terrorism in the U.S. is to destroy our free way of life as the gov't claims, then D.C. is truly the headquarters of the very worst of the terrorists. They should be declared illegal combatants and shipped off to Cuba ASAP.

Every time Bush signs a new law restricting our freedom, he harms more people in a more insideous way with his pen than the foriegn terrorists could ever aspire even with nukes.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[Anonymous Coward]

We face a future where people who hate us because of our freedoms can and will attack us at will with amazingly ordinary implements used in novel ways.

You don't really believe that nonsense do you? It's a brilliant example of double-speak and you've fallen for it. The reason people hate America is because of the demonstrably aggressive nature of the various White House administrations over the years -- culminating in the current abhorant display of arrogance in the Middle East.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[autophile]

I am a software engineer today BECAUSE of my early experiences with model rocketry and model airplanes and because they taught me how things worked and fired my imagination about what could be possible in the future.

Haven't you heard? America doesn't need any more software engineers, just more H1B's. That's why the US just unchecked the box marked "allow model rocketry"!

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[Anonymous Coward]

Placing restrictions upon any technology hobby in the name of "combating terrorism" is folly of the highest order and constitutes blindingly stupid public policy.

No kidding. They closed down my meth lab last year and no they wont let me play with my nuclear reactor.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but there does have to be a limit somewhere!

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the name of fighting terrorism, the government is detaining people without charges, lawyers, or even releasing the names. They are about to invade a foreign country for what they might do. They now say they might use nukes before someone else does. And you whine because you don't have easy access to explosives. Give me a break.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[Dr. Manhattan]

With WMD, Saddam has an extortion tool that he can use - cave to his demands, or we lose Cleveland.

But unlike a terrorist, he has a relatively fixed base of operations. If we 'lost Cleveland', he knows that he would almost immediately lose Baghdad, and probably a few other cities. A nuke first, then conventional bombing, troops, the whole bit. I've seen no sign that he is willing to die to hurt someone else - those myriad lookalike bodyguards indicate someone with a keen interest in living.

He has nothing to gain from direct extortion on the US, and everything to lose. At most he might pose a threat to other nations in the area, but if he actually did more than saber-rattle, then the US has proven that it will walk over and stomp him into the dirt.

I don't like our stupid dependence on foreign oil, which makes us care what happens over there. But I just can't believe that Saddam poses any direct threat to the US, or even much of an indirect threat.

Re:Shortsighted and foolish...

[cavehobbit]

>>Without marching out into the world and killing all of these people "pre-emptively"

Sorry, idea already patented by Amazon.....

Efficiency.

[blair1q]

Maybe they'll work on making rockets that go higher and straighter on 62.5 g of propellant.

Re:Efficiency.

[wirefarm]

Or buy a bunch of engines, if they even needed to.

How much anthrax or ricin could 62.5 g of propellant carry?
How much could a weather balloon carry?

Brings to mind the story about the kid who did scary radioactive stuff using legal items that contained trace elements of radioactive materials, such as smoke detectors and the wicks from Coleman lanterns.

Look at our major terrorist attacks:
WTC - Box cutters.
Oklahoma City - Manure and fuel.

In other words, where there's a will, there's a way.

Re:Efficiency.

[teaserX]

Just to pick a nit...
OK City was a truck full of Ammonium Chloride plus fuel. Still fertilizer but it packs more of a punch that the regular "shit".

Re:Efficiency.

[teaserX]

Sorry...Ammonium Nitrate

Re:Efficiency.

[blair1q]

Look at our major terrorist attacks:
WTC - Box cutters.
Oklahoma City - Manure and fuel.

In other words, where there's a will, there's a way.


Washington, D.C. - the PATRIOT act.

Too right.

For those who find python weird

[Anonymous Coward]

or question its purpose...

Have a look at Zope or ROX desktop to get an idea of how versatile and easy python can be to get Real Stuff done!

Not to mention bindings for java, .NET, mozilla, and what have you. IMHO the write-once-run-anywhere quest might currently be best served with python (contrary to popular believe).

From procedural scripting to high level OO, python has it all.

Re:For those who find python weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I forgot Gentoo's portage which is written in python.

Oh... the loopholes....

[jemenake]

"When it comes to the hobby of model rocketry, size does matter. And in this case, the magic number is 62.5 grams. That's the largest amount of propellant a single model rocket engine can have in it and still be exempt from a new set of federal rules that will go into effect May 24."

Okay... possible loopholes are:

62.5 grams of hydrogen can probably send your rocket a LONG way

They put a limit on propellant. Does the oxydizer get counted in with this weight, or do I get to put all of the liquid O2 that I want?

What about multi-staging rocket engines together? Is that considered one engine?

I wonder if there's a way to re-classify stuff as something other than "propellant". "Well, you see... the payload is a water-vapor dispersal device which creates the vapor by combining hydrogen and oxygen...."

Re:Oh... the loopholes....

[Sooner Boomer]

The restrictions are for *specific* chemicals - Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) and Black Powder. The propellants are combinations of fuel and oxidizers. The restrictions are limits for ONE engine. Engines may be clustered or staged for greater combined impulse. There are still alternatives such as hybrid systems (which use nitrous oxide and a solid material such as cellulose).

Re:Oh... the loopholes....

[Turbyne]

Solution: Cast your own engines. It may take a workshop/garage/arm or 2 but you'll be good in no time (hopefully)

Python's "vs" issue

[mattdm]

I find it very interesting that so many Python users are so bitter about Perl, and so antagonistic. In fact, it was one of the things that kept me from even bothering to look at Python for a long time -- all of the Python advocates come across like a bunch of jerks. When I did get around to looking, I found that it's a nice, interesting, and useful language -- that doesn't really compare to or compete with Perl in a meaningful way at all.

Two of Perl's main strengths are 1) CPAN and 2) regular expressions integrated naturally into the language. Python's libraries are pretty good, and there's a lot of good stuff out there, but with Perl, I can pretty much count on 99% of anything I want to do having been done already. And sure, Python can "do" regular expressions -- in approximately the same way that one can do them in C or Java, by making a series of function calls.

At least on the second of these points, Python isn't even in the same *business* as Perl. There's just flat out no meaningful comparision. Python has *a lot* of strengths, but they're totally different from Perl's. So why do Python advocates get so worked up about something their preferred language fundamentally isn't designed to do? Why don't they raise a big stink every time someone mentions Java? That seems like a more usefully-comparible application space. Or C++, for that matter.

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[Anonymous Coward]

pythonistas don't raise any stink about java because of Jython. and the ones that do raise a stink about Perl aren't worth listening to; they're the equivalent of the sort of linux zealot who wastes all their time posting to /. about the evils of microsoft, instead of actually doing something good and useful with the free software they claim to love so much. most sensible python users don't have time to start any anti-[insert language] flamewars.

about regexps, i won't bother to flame myself; i'll just paraphrase jamie zawinski about them - "you have a problem, so you decide to solve it with a regexp. whoops, now you have two problems!".

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[pyman]

Two of Perl's main strengths are 1) CPAN and 2) regular expressions integrated naturally into the language.
<snip>
Python has *a lot* of strengths, but they're totally different from Perl's. So why do Python advocates get so worked up about something their preferred language fundamentally isn't designed to do?

You are quite right. Perl is a language designed for processing text (why else have regular expressions as a fundamental part of the language), while Python is designed as a general purpose language, suitable for any kind of application.

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[Brian Quinlan]

In fact, it was one of the things that kept me from even bothering to look at Python for a long time -- all of the Python advocates come across like a bunch of jerks....

I think that some Python advocates come off as jerks, when talking about Perl, because they have had to work with Perl and loathed the experience.
Perl code has write-only properties that can make it frustrating to work with, especially if a Perl newbie is working with highly idiomatic code written by an expert.


Why don't they raise a big stink every time someone mentions Java?


Java is a lot more readable than idiomatic Perl.

Cheers,

Brian

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[smallpaul]

At least on the second of these points, Python isn't even in the same *business* as Perl. There's just flat out no meaningful comparision.

I find it kind of odd that you think that a language with regular expressions in the syntax and one without cannot in general be used to solve the same kinds of problems. Does typing the parens change the nature of the problem that much?

But more to the point, if Perl's raison d'etre is built-in regular expressions (as you claim) then why is it used for (e.g.) SlashCode. What about building a large weblog community is regular-expression-centric? The vast majority of sizable Perl programs have very little to do with regular expressions.

Python has *a lot* of strengths, but they're totally different from Perl's. So why do Python advocates get so worked up about something their preferred language fundamentally isn't designed to do?

There was a period in the mid-90s when it was very common to be forced to write Perl because there was just some Perl code around that had to be maintained. The liklihood of this happening to an individual is proportional to the popularity of Perl. If Perl ceases to be popular then there won't be that much Perl code laying around to be maintained. Just today I was scrounging around in some open source scruffy Perl code that could have been better written in Python. That's the argument from self-interest.

The argument from emotion is that the popularity of Perl rather offends people's sense of competition between technologies being on the basis of quality rather than luck or marketing...in somewhat of the same way that it is typical to be annoyed at the popularity of IIS on Windows 2000 Server. In a sense, Perl is symbolimatic for some people of the less admirable qualities of our industry. What if the "Perl Aesthetic" (which discounts the importance of cleanliness and orthogonality) was to become the norm in other areas of our business?

Why don't they raise a big stink every time someone mentions Java? That seems like a more usefully-comparible application space. Or C++, for that matter.

Well for one thing, Python interoperates really well with Java and C++. So every line of Java and C++ out there can be construed as bolstering the argument for adding Python to the mix a a glue language. Whereas it is very rare to take a large Perl system and say: "let's bolt on some Python to provide a high level interface to this thing." For another thing, the liklihood of Python replacing Java and C++ in the hearts and minds of corporate application developers is quite slim. (especially considering the performance issues) But Python really could replace Perl for everything but 1-liners.

But the most important reason Python users trash Perl is because the first question a newbie asks on hearing about Python, an object oriented scripting language is: "How is it different than Perl?" It is rare for people to ask how it compares to Java or C++ because typically they are expecting Python to complement or extend systems built in Java or C++. If there were a clear consensus out there about when to use Python and when to use Perl then there would be little anti-Perl sentiment in the Python community. But saying that "Perl has built-in regular expressions" is not the same as providing a guideline for when it is better to use Perl than Python or vice versa.

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[mattdm]

I find it kind of odd that you think that a language with regular expressions in the syntax and one without cannot in general be used to solve the same kinds of problems.

Wow, I sure didn't say anything like that.

Does typing the parens change the nature of the problem that much?

Nope, but it changes the nature of the *solution*.

But more to the point, if Perl's raison d'etre is built-in regular expressions (as you claim) then why is it used for (e.g.) SlashCode. What about building a large weblog community is regular-expression-centric?

Hold on there. Where is this "as you claim" coming from? I said "two of Perl's main strengths", and you then say that I claim something *far* stronger. In that difference, you might find the answer to your question -- and I find a lot of the answer to my question about Python advocates.

(Skipping forward...)

But the most important reason Python users trash Perl is because the first question a newbie asks on hearing about Python, an object oriented scripting language is: "How is it different than Perl?"

What's wrong with "It's not really like Perl at all"?

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[mattdm]

I think that some Python advocates come off as jerks, when talking about Perl, because they have had to work with Perl and loathed the experience.

So? I've had to do quite a few things that I've loathed in my life, but I don't feel compelled to complain about them every time I'm explaining something totally different.

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[bm_luethke]

I tend to find many Perl users to be just as antagonistic about using Perl. When I first changed a program from Perl to Python because of the size of code (nearing 5000 line in Perl) I was told, rather smugly, that anytime I wrote a Perl program at 5000 lines I was not using Perl correctly - and many proceded to heckle me. Ohh yea, 1000 lines of obfuscated Perl is the greatest thing ever. You can see many similar type posts here from Perl people.

Most people, however agreed with my decision. Most of the python people agree when I write smaller script in Perl.

And to adress the RegEx thing - it depends on what you are doing. One of the things I regulary write at work are "little languages". That is too complicated for somethin like "getops" too small for lexx/yacc. The way python deals with grouping and storing the matches in an object are extremely nice in writing a small recursive decent parser. Perl was MUCH more messy. Smaller Regex stuff Perl just flew and was simple to write/read. More complicated and Pyhton once again came out ahead.

I've never really seen Java or C++ as being a competitor of python. Java is more a client/server application environment. C++ is more applicable with extremely large products (I could not image writing 100,000 lines of python - it would at least need to compile well to native code). I find myslef much more often deciding if the application needs Python or Perl (I see thier diferences based on scaling the size/complexity of code - Perl for small-medium, python for medium-large).

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm posting anonymously because this is kinda off-topic, but I just wanted to say that that was the best, most well-thought-out and insightful response on this flamewarish topic that I've ever seen, and you totally deserve the +5.

I can't help but notice that while the parent post referred to some Python advocates as "jerks" and didn't got into much detail at all to make an argument, you not only refrained from name-calling (easy), but you also spent some time to develop your responses, all of which included more than one well-reasoned point.

I salute you. Well done Sir.

- WzDD

Re:Python's "vs" issue

[smallpaul]

SmallPaul said:I find it kind of odd that you think that a language with regular expressions in the syntax and one without cannot in general be used to solve the same kinds of problems.

Mattdm responded:Wow, I sure didn't say anything like that.

You said that Perl and Python do not really compete at all. That's simply not true. There are tens of thousands of projects out there that could be done in either Perl or Python. At the beginning of the project, someone chose between the languages. Often this is a very explicit process involving a bunch of argumentation and sometimes rancour. If that isn't competition, what is it?

Meh

[egg troll]

As I read somewhere, the gov't wants to limit the amount of propellant not because the engines can be used as an explosive. Rather they don't want potential terrorists to be able to build rockets that could carry a possible dangerous payload a long ways.

Having said that, is there any terrorist worth his weight that won't be able to figure out a way around this?

Re:Meh

[malelder]

well, from what i've read, its not that the terrorists figure out a way around it, its that they hire some disgruntled scientist to figure out a way around whatever issue is troubling them at the moment. Documentation seems to show that having a large bankroll has lead to the same problem-solving solution many large corporations have stumbled into; throw money at it.

however, my research shows that we are lucky, in that the terrorist's ego will cause him to eliminate the scientist before everything is fully complete, meaning that said mass-destruction device won't work as well as it should. Or we'll put together some intelligence puzzle right at the last moment and nab em before they even get off the plane...so just relax (:

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

If the scientist is smart, he'll sell the terrorists a shoddy bomb casing full of used pinball machine parts.

Of course, then he'll get shot. Let's just hope he's recently invented a time machine, so someone can go back and warn him!

Re:Meh

[drinkypoo]

I think the truth is that the government wants to control which terrorists can launch a rocket which can carry a dangerous payload a long way. If we're not selling the munitions to the third world countries, we get upset. I can't figure out if it's because we want to control who is dangerous, or just because we want to be the ones sending them the invoice.

APPLE SWITCH SPOOF: HILLARY ROSEN

[Kaz Riprock]

http://www.thehumorsource.com/pictures/865.jpg

Honest, it's really funny.

Re:Whitespace not BAD, Mkay...

[ChadN]

Python is distributed with a script (pindent.py) which can take normal python code and package it in block delimiting comments. So, one could output code without proper whitespace (and with proper comment delimiters), and have it easily 'whitespaced' before execution.

The pindent.py module also contains the class (PythonIndenter) which does the work, making it easy to incorporate in a Python program which is processing other python code.

There are also tools in the standard library to help properly generate python code directly.

In practice, it just isn't a problem.

All 9 of you...

[Wee]

the linked article also mentions lisp/scheme - why haven't us schemers gotten together yet to celebrate its sweetness???

The corner booth at Denny's doesn't need to be reserved in advance, you know.

:-)

-B

Actually....

[Fencepost]

Most Python users fall into one of three camps:

• Used Perl, tried Python, liked it better and switched
• Used Perl, tried Python, found it better for some things, use both
• Never used Perl, don't care about it

I left out "Used Python, tried Perl, switched" because Perl's better-known and there are fewer people who started with Python. Besides folks who did that arguably don't qualify as Python users anymore.

There's a small subset of folks (most of whom really need to get a life and a few who are probably doing it for entertainment reasons) who publicly get really worked up about the superiority of Python. Similarly, in the Linux community there's a similar group of folks who get really worked up about Ruby. Remarkably enough, in the Perl community there is (wait for it) a similar group of folks who get really worked up about Perl. Some other products/projects with their own little fanatical subgroups: vi, emacs, Macs, FreeBSD, OpenBSD (and don't confuse the two!) and probably skript-kiddie toolsets.

The common feature that most of these folks share is that as far as the rest of us are concerned they need to get a life. I have no doubt that there are other shared behaviors within these groups, but if I went into those it could seem that I was just being nasty.

Re:Actually....

[mattdm]

The common feature that most of these folks share is that as far as the rest of us are concerned they need to get a life.

Ok, true enough. But I really do notice it particularly in Python users and particularly in terms of venom against Perl. It's one thing to go on and on about how great one's chosen language is, but it's another to have to lash out at something else whenever that other thing is mentioned -- and to bring it up if it hasn't been. This isn't just the case in newsgroups or on slashdot -- I've seen it in a "serious" Python books at the bookstore. Maybe even a majority of them.

Re:Actually....

[lunenburg]

You know, you could replace "Perl" with "Red Hat", and "Python" with "Other Linux Distros", and the meaning wouldn't change at all.

I equate it with insecure people's need to lash out at whatever is most popular or mainstream, in an effort to look like they're cool.

Re:Actually....

[Ian Bicking]

A lot of it comes from people who have been forced to use Perl for some reason (maintenance, management, whatever). The programmer who really likes Python (enough to write a book or advertise a conference) will generally detest Perl (I do, though I try not to make too big a deal of it -- Perl's time in history has passed anyway :).

Python people, when amongst their own, don't talk about Perl much. But /. is known Perl territory :)

Re:Actually....

[drinkypoo]

Another thing I've noticed is that there is a tendency (that word is my disclaimer) for python people to simply flame off, but for perl users to demonstrate a point with code. While this doesn't necessarily mean anything, it is very interesting to me. In fact, to me, providing a rationale which is based on something concrete (like code) is the equivalent of saying "I'm annoyed with x and this is (wh)y", where just pissing and moaning about it is being a little baby.

In the end, evangelism to people who don't care is rude no matter what the subject. If someone wants to know why python is better than perl, or vice versa, they can go looking for arguments all over the web.

Re:Actually....

[mattdm]

I dunno.... I've looked at several books on SuSE, Slackware, and even Debian, and I don't remember any of them beginning with an anti-Red Hat rant.

Re:Actually....

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one:

Tried Perl, tried Python, went back to assembly.

Hmm.... Donut!

[Black Copter Control]

Homer Simpson would be very VERY happy.
(roommate's friend blurted out that one in passing).

Re:Hmm.... Donut!

[Black Copter Control]

Urgh! Wrong discussion... No wonder nobody had made the 'obvious comment'.
(god how embarassing).

I'll be a rebel

[FullCircle]

and mention REBOL.

Cool alternative to Perl or Python.
www.REBOL.com

Rocket engine ban

[Anonymous Coward]

If model rocket engines were only used for model rockets there would be no problem. They were used for torture as far back as 1985.

Re:Rocket engine ban

[sjames]

Don't be silly, toothpicks can (and have been) used as instruments of torture as well.

Yeah, Right, my model rocket can do damage

[just some computer j]

Ok, let's face it, our elected and appointed leaders are dipshits. Now, let's look at some facts. Most model rockets are made of what? Cardboard, Plastic and balsa wood. Range of this supposed "weapons" is what, 500 to 1500 feet vertical. So, if you do some number crunching, you get maybe a mile from a rocket fired at a 45 degree angle. The biggest payload I have heard anyone lifting with a model rocket is a uncooked chicken egg. And if I remember right, that didn't always going up very high, and the egg ended up mostly just small shards of shell and scrambled. Also, have anyone tried to aim a unguided model rocket to any degree of accuratcy? You are lucky to get the rocket to land in your own neighborhood after you launch it. Even with bigger engines, the risk to anyone in this country of getting gassed or sickened with bioweapons from a model rocket is just stupid. Make sure you write President Bush about this, maybe something will finally get through his thick skull and leave the hobbies of thousands of people alone. If that doesn't work, we could always egg the White House with the model rockets that carry the eggs!

Re:Yeah, Right, my model rocket can do damage

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all a case of "fight the symptom to make it look like we care". Rocket motors aren't going to be used for terrorism. Look at what happened after 9/11... they started confiscating box cutters. Trust me guys, the terrorists are smarter than that. They're not going to say "gosh darn it, no box cutters and no rocket motors? We might as well give up and go back to Palestine".

Re:Yeah, Right, my model rocket can do damage

[aluminumtulips]

What made you say "Palestine"? Why would the terrorists go back to Palestine of all the places in the Middle East? Are all terrorists from Palestine?

Re:Yeah, Right, my model rocket can do damage

[ColaMan]

(Chipping in) Besides, you don't *need* model rockets - there are plenty of people willing to die for their beliefs.

What? you want to drop nerve gas on new york? Ok, here's a young idealistic recruit who's happy to drive his car into the middle of town with a bootload of the stuff. Easy.

In the Python vs Perl war...

[Anonymous Coward]

one day the winner could be Ruby. It's incredibly easy to learn and powerful, 100% object oriented and the community support keeps growing every day.
Here are a nice online book and an interactive tutorial.

Lispy goodness at:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://welcome.to/newlisp

What makes whitespace so special?

[Moses Lawn]

Python is a language that is just as old, and arguably better from: most importantly a uniform standard of readability (enforced by using whitespace to delimit blocks (instead of {}), by avoiding overuse of cryptic symbols...

Please explain how using whitespace instead of some paired token adds readability, assuming your bracing style is reasonable. To me, having the braces there explicitly shows me that I have a block that starts *here* and ends *here*. Since I use the apparently unique style of having open and close braces in the same column (as opposed to K&R style), I can immedately see the block structure.

That said, I think Python is one of those cool languages I really need to learn some day, as soon as I have a project that I can use it for. And it *is* nice to know that everyone involved at least *has* an indentation policy. I don't suppose you can enforce a tabsize, can you? All the major stylistic wars solved, leaving all you energy available for editor advocacy.

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Sedennial]

Actually you aren't unique in aligning braces by column. I use a fairly small font in GUI mode, and have my text console set at 100x60 so that I have plenty of room to indent my braces. I also do the same thing with html tags (especially nested tables).

But then again I'm one of those wierd people who believe in commenting code. ;)

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Ian Bicking]

I think people make too much of whitespace on both sides. It's just a detail.

However, it does mean massive tab-vs-space flamefests on comp.lang.python! (I'm a tab-hater myself -- tabs are a total PITA, and only advocated by people with stupid editors or people who don't understand that ASCII is not a form of semantic markup).

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Doppleganger]

I was wondering that myself.. I also pair my braces up in the same column, it makes it *really* easy to skim through code and add new stuff in the correct place. I think I got that and 3-space indentations from whatever references I first learned C++ from. Keeps things reasonably spaced, without wasting much space (aside from the extra line for the beginning brace).

It also means that my perl scripting tends to be just as readable as my C programming. Beats me how people can say perl is a write-only language.

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Daath]

I use the braces the same way you do ;)
I also indent properly everywhere.
In Python I just don't have to do the braces, and it's really really nice :)

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[DevNull Ogre]

Which, of course, screws up your code for those of us using a reasonably sized font and a standard 80 columns. Anything but a newline past column 79 is rude, rude, rude.

(Commenting your code is good, though. Just wrap your comments before they get to column 80.)

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you talking about?
Tabs are supreme, with tabs everyone in our project can pick their own favorite amount of indentation in python; we just set tab=x in the editor preferences.
I prefer 5 spaces for each tab, many in our appartment prefer 3, we can all have it our way, as the editor formats it for us!

Fuck spaces, conformaty sucks, tabs is supreme.

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Anonymous Coward]

...conformaty sucks, tabs is supreme.

Tabs are conformity, moron.

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[TeknoHog]

The initial development of Python involved some usability research. Practically everyone indents blocks in languages, in addition to the {} required by the language, so it's quite natural to define indentation as the block separator.

[rant mode=";-)"]
If you C programmers are so happy with braces, why do you want to indent the code at all? I mean, you could just write it in one line, because you have those wonderful {}s to separate the blocks.
[/rant]

Python's whitespace thing does have a few drawbacks. For example, mod_python lets you embed Python code into HTML just like PHP, but it can be awkward to use indented blocks there. mod_python allows brace and semicolon separation for this reason, but then again I'll rather use PHP for those situations.

There's also the potential problem if a certain whitespace looks like a tab in the editor, but the interpreter sees these differently, so it'll be a pain to debug. Never happened to me though.

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Sedennial]

Actually I wrap comments at 72. :) Manually. For that very reason. I don't hard wrap the code lines themselves since any semi-useful editor (Emacs, Ultraedit, pico (just kidding!!) should be able to handle softwrapped indenting correctly.

Re:What makes whitespace so special?

[Tassach]

Oh yeah, I can see why it make so much more sense to use 24 spaces to indent a line than 3 tabs. I mean, harddrives are cheap, caring about filesize is like, so 1980's. :-)

Re:Whitespace not BAD, Mkay...

[Anonymous Coward]

If, in practice, it just wasn't a problem, then tell me why there are these tools you just sopke of to fix it?

Correction

[Ungrounded Lightning]

A former boss of mine once did a project at Lawrence Livermore

Oops. Los Alamos test site.

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

[Myriad]

"Model Rocketry Enthusiasts' Hobby Goes Up in Smoke...."
I'll bet that pun goes over some people's heads.....

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Please use fewer 'bad joke' and 'puns'. Try adding some content.

:)

Blockwars: a multiplayer head-to-head game similar to Tetris.

It is all about the idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has the money to go to a conference that really doesn't teach much, and has very little but social ramifications.

The larger the less-technically minded crowd is for a given subject correlates directly with the number of Con's there are for it.

If you already are an uber-geek, you don't go to cons unless you are a paid speaker, or an organizer. If you hack perl, and there is always more than one way to do it, and none of them are good, then obviously you will want a million cons, just trying to find a solution that really makes the language work.

You just don't have those types of idiots in the python camp.

One might argue, though, that the only reason why all python users are experts, is because the set of all users is the same as the set of the language developers.

Re: Examples of Python in action

[Dr. Mu]

As an ardent Perl user, all I can say is, "Methinks he doth protest too much."

Seems Obvious

[snitty]

"What does this mean for the the big guys in model rocketry, who use engines larger than this?"

It means they can't use the bigger engines anymore. . . Perhaps with a license?

Re:Seems Obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it means they can't have the bigger engines shipped to them.

Look, this thing is all about people handling/shipping the engines. With the new rules, anyone who handles these engines in transit, must have undergone background checks and special training.

They don't give a flying f*ck if you put a 1 Kilo engine in your rocket, they just require new clearances for shippers to transport more than 62.5 grams of "explosives".

That's all it's about, it's not about the rockets, it's about shipping the engines.

Re:APPLE SWITCH SPOOF: HILLARY ROSEN

[Kaz Riprock]

Oh, come on, moderators...

A) This is really funny.

B) This is slashback for christ's sake.

C) I might have goofed up the URL...try this one instead.

Wired reporter lying/mistaken? What's new...

[claud9999]

I thought most of you realized that Wired is a fictional publication that occasional contains facts, not the other way around. Reliable and skilled news organization they are not.

(IMHO, they're the tech equivalent of Weekly World News. I'm just amazed people still buy it!)

Engine sizes

[X-Nc]

Anyone remember (or know) what the weight of the D engine is? It's been 25 years since I was into model rockets but with this sillyness coming I think I'll have to get back into it.

Re:Engine sizes

[Wall,_The]

Anyone remember (or know) what the weight of the D engine is?

Right around 45g for a D size. So you can go up to the E's before you start to push on the limit.

Re:Engine sizes

[n3h3m14h]

For Estes D12 series motors, the official mass (or weight as they label it) is 24.93g. It has a total impulse of 20 N-s (Newton-seconds), reaches peak thrust at ~.25 sec, burnout (all done) at ~1.6 sec. In actual testing, one will typically find that actual total impulse, peak thrust, burn time, etc. will vary slightly (lower) than the official spec.

Note: each motor class upward doubles the maxium total impulse of the previous class (letter designation), therefore an E class motor has between 20.1 - 40 N-s, F 40.1 - 80 N-s, G 80.1 - 160 N-s, etc.

Of course any second-grader can figure out that it only takes three motors to exceed the single motor propellant mass limit.

BTW, Estes typically packages the motors in three's.

Hmm... which is the stronger signal to the ATF, trying to buy 40 kg of black powder, or 1,800 D12 rocket motors?!?

As for getting back into model rocketry, go for it! I was away from rockets for over 20 years and got back into it when my kids were old enough to start building and flying them. Plus, you get to say great one-liners at parties like: "Actually, I am a rocket scientist."

Re:Engine sizes

[n3h3m14h]

Anyone remember (or know) what the weight of the D engine is?

Right around 45g for a D size. So you can go up to the E's before you start to push on the limit.

45g would be about right for the entire motor mass of an Estes D (casing, ejection charge, nozzle, and propellant).

I have a couple of theories on this...

[ravage]

ok, I'll jump in and throw my $0.02 on this (being someone from the started learning c (enjoyed it), went to Perl, and then switched to Python club).

1) Perl gives the programmer an extreeme amount of freedom of style which makes it a powerful language for the vetran programmer and a BAD BAD BAD choice for a newbie who has no concept of style, form and coding practice. It's extreemely easy to write obfuscated code in Perl.

In contrast Python by it's nature/design enforces at least some basic concepts of good programming style (whether the new programmer knows it or not!). It's often called execuitable psudocode by programmers familiar with other languages.

Am I saying one is better or not? NO (that was already covered by one of the parents). But because it is so popular and in such wide use, it too often becomes the first programming language those NEW to programming choose. And it's just too easy to learn bad habits in (I'm thinking of the mentorless, self-taught here).

2) python users on slashdot == linux users on ZDnet. A proud (sometimes zelot) vocal minority who don't want to be overlooked in all of the noise.

Re:I have a couple of theories on this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perl gives the programmer an extreeme amount of freedom of style which makes it a powerful language for the vetran programmer and a BAD BAD BAD choice for a newbie who has no concept of style, form and coding practice.

Sure, and English is a terrible first language for the newbie human -- everyone should start with Lojban, and only bother to learn other languages once they've got style, form, and speaking practice down. English gives the speaker an extreme amount of freedom of style....

There's actually a lot to be said for something that gets the job done for a newbie easily and quickly when they need the job done. If they find that something does that, they might use it again next time, and perhaps hone their skills as they do. Python is pretty decent at this for some learning styles, but for others, Perl's inherent flexiblity is a big win.

Re:I have a couple of theories on this...

[aallan]

Perl gives the programmer an extreeme amount of freedom of style which makes it a powerful language for the vetran programmer and a BAD BAD BAD choice for a newbie who has no concept of style, form and coding practice. It's extreemely easy to write obfuscated code in Perl.

But conversely its not extremely hard to write good object-orientated code in Perl, and to make it easily accessible to people writing a twenty line perl scripts by using CPAN. This lets the less experienced (occasional) coder do powerful things easily, and lets the rest of us build large complex applications very quickly, something that is supposed to Python's strength point.

Personally, if Python had a version of CPAN, I'd probably code in Python. It doesn't, and its hellishly hard for someone used to CPAN figure out whether there is an existing Python module to do something they need to do...

Al.

Re:I have a couple of theories on this...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.vex.net/parnassus/apyllo.py/973100124

The vaults of Parnassus, the closest thing to CPAN for Python. It's basically all the Python libraries that aren't included in the standard distribution. If a library isn't there then it probably doesn't exist.

Really good example of Python in action

[delfstrom]

A really good example of Python in action is Plone.

Plone is Python scripts and other bits running on top of Zope, a web application server written in Python.

Of course there's also examples of Python being used on the desktop, but as a web application, Plone (and of course Zope) are worth a good hard look. To some extent, Zope can be considered the 'killer app' for the Python language.

Re:Really good example of Python in action

[Ian Bicking]

Zope is written in Python, but to me (and a lot of others) programming Zope is not much like programming Python (and not in a good way). All of Python's best features are lost in Zope -- the flexibility, the easy-to-understand execution model, the transparency... Zope is a huge pile of code.

That said, when I try to figure things out in Zope I can understand the Zope code from the very beginning -- considering Zope's size and complexity, and the fact I start out reading some module deep on the inside of the system, it's a testiment to Python's readability. And for all the issues I have with Zope, the actual core code is not nearly as messy as the thing it implements... which is a little ironic.

Hopping Fences

[Anonymous Coward]

We used to hop the cattle fences in Oak Ridge all the time when I was growing up. All that land... Great place to ride your mt bike, smoke dope, swim in the quarry between K-25 and the west end of town, spook ourselves out on Halloween at the haunted church near K-25. Wonderful place to grow up. Probably similar in Los Alamos.

What ever happened to REH ???

[pair-a-noyd]

I used to get a nut browsing thier site.
I first found about it hearing Bob Lazar on Art Bell.
These guys were into some seriously whacked stuff.
I would browse and dream of going to the desert one day to see them cut cars in two with Rolls Royce jet engines, hook V1 type engines to Vespa Scooters, and other insane stuff.

I guess all good things must come to an end.
Now I am relegated down to the Pumpkin Chunkin and Trebuchet sites....

Punsters Anonymous....

[horse_pheathers]

Sorry, Myriad...I just suffered a setback on my road to recovery and a pun-free life. I'll contact my sponsor immediately.

-- Horse_Pheathers, hanging his head slowly and doffing his jaunty jester's cap in shame, taking care to stifle the merry bells on the pointy bits.....

Re:Punsters Anonymous....

[Anonymous Coward]

*chuckle*

Ah well, my post didn't come out quite the way I wanted. Ended up being totally not funny. Oh well, maybe next time. :)

ISO: Renaissance People

[halfgeek]

I like to think that while the zealots are trying to make themselves heard, the important people are behind the scenes doing the important things. Any loudmouth shouting on behalf of any language should remember that the people who love the language most are working tirelessly to change it for the better. Read Larry Wall's Apocalypses and see if I'm kidding--and pay particular attention to the part where he destroys the regular expression as we know it. :-)

I also like to think that the really hardcore programmers out there aren't wasting their time arguing about what language is superior or whining about what you can do in one environment that you can't in another. Real programmers are too busy getting things working, by any means necessary, within the boundaries of the environment. If you are a true programmer, an environment works as well as you force it to work.

I'm very comfortable in GNU now, Linux, Cygwin, and then some, but it wasn't always so. A few years ago, being a Windows only type and knowing no C or C++, I used to work with Visual Basic a lot. When I found out that Perl worked better for about everything I had been using VB for, I switched. When I couldn't figure out how to do SendKeys or AppActivate using Perl and Win32 API calls, did I spend time griping? No! I wrote an ActiveX DLL, figured out enough C to get COM going, and SWIGged it together.

Slightly more recently, I wrote a parser in Perl to implement a workaround to various shortcomings in Greymatter, but I had to make it work with PHP, in which the entire rest of my site was written (because it's way easier to write a page in PHP than in Perl). Was it any problem? No. For the prototype, I had PHP exec my Perl. Was it messy? Yes! Eventually, when I had the time, I rewrote the parser from top to bottom in PHP.

There's no need to be religious about any of this. If you have the option to use the environment of your choice, by all means, use it! But if you are forced to work outside your boundaries, remember, you are a programmer; you can take it. Plus, the last thing you want to do is take out your frustrations on the masters of the unknown domain.

I write programs all the time that my friends want to try but won't because ActivePerl is 12MB to download. I'm not going to scream at my friends for not having Perl; they just can't use my program. If it's worth my time, I may go to the trouble of rewriting in C++. If it pays enough, I might even spring for Perl2EXE to do the work for me.

It's as simple as that. There's always some solution. You write for your environment. You try to convince your client to deploy programming environment N or virtual machine V on all the workstations; if that's a no go, you do something else that is a go--if that's not practical, you lose the sale.

At this point, I know most of what I need to know to get by in Perl, PHP, JavaScript, C, and C++, and maybe a little VB if I search my memory far enough, and I do virtually all my writing in vim (within which, I admit, I don't know every single command that might be of use to me). If somebody needs me to write something in Python, or Java, or Tcl, or Lisp, or JScript on Windows Scripting Host, or any other wacky thing with which I'm not in constant contact, and makes me do it in Emacs or Pico or even Notepad, damn it, should I back down? Hell, no!

First, I try my obviously overdeveloped shoehorning skills! (It's amazing how many different ways you can find to get incongruous program environments to communicate!) :-D

If that doesn't work, then I owe it to myself to take a serious look at what this environment can do, what it can do right, and what I have to work around. Then, I do my work and move on with my life.

I believe that this is a vital part of what is necessary to be a bona fide Renaissance Programmer, and that most programmers who don't feel the same have no business programming.

A Thousand Points of Light

[Sloppy]

Read between the lines, and you'll see what the government is encouraging Americans to do. Teach a kid in your neighborhood about high-energy chemistry today! Build your own expl^H^H^H^H rocket engines, kids! There aren't any shipping regulations if you build it yourself or buy it from a neighbor.

OT :Hmm.... Donut!

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Mmmmmm Unprocessed fish sticks...
- from when Homer went all 3-D and saw donuts/toroids...

There must be a way to compile....

[Fencepost]

I don't use Perl, but I can't believe there aren't decent solutions out there to compile to an executable.

If there aren't then I'll be a little zealotish and say that that's one area where Python clearly has an advantage.

Whitespace

[Anonymous Coward]

enforced by using whitespace to delimit blocks (instead of {})

Stick your fucking whitespace, give me block delimiters anyday.

Re:Whitespace

[psykocrime]

Agreed. Python invokes horrible images of column oriented languages like RPG, in my mind. Which is why I have zero interest in learning it.

Re:Whitespace

[black mariah]

So because you don't have to use braces, you're not going to go near it? It's not fucking COBOL, dude. The images Python invokes are nothing like it actually WORKS. Pull your head out of your ass and try it some day, you might like it.

Yet Another Mouther of Cliches Heard From

[Anonymous Coward]

the whole whitespace thing...

Never tried it, have you? The whitespace thing is an nearly infallible sign of an armchair critic - handy for identifying those too lazy to do more than browse a few Slashdot links, but ready to pontificate on the merits, or lack thereof, of anything they've heard two vague rumors about.

In other words, the archetypal Slashdottie.

And this is the sort of pinhead that has his posts valued above par? No wonder Slashdot sucks these days!

Re:Yet Another Mouther of Cliches Heard From

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the "whitespace thing" is a touchy subject for you Python boiz.

I call "flamebait" on this one .. too bad you couldn't muster the ballz to $login.

"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[einhverfr]

If you need something more powerful than 62.5 grams, Go with compressed Oxygen and gasolene. After all, O2 is needed in welding and is pretty commonly available in welding outlets and Gasolene is explicitly an unregulated explosive ;-)

not so bitter, just celebrating the difference

[UselessPython]

Although there are still a lot of people I haven't met, even within the Python community, I really haven't gotten the impression that very many Python programmers have any grudge at all against Perl. There's a bit of a friendly rivalry, but the tone among serious Pythonistas has never struck me as venomous.

The two languages have plenty of similarities and differences. Both are powerful interpreted languages. And both have deep roots in various communities, with a certain amount of overlap.

The most legendary distinction between the two languages is philosophical. Perl's "There's more than one way to do it" is often contrasted with Python's "There should be one obvious way to do it". Playfully, some have said that Python is like "executable pseudocode" and Perl is like "executable line noise" (referring to the readability mythos).

According to Perl.org: "Perl started on Unix systems as a system administration tool." Python's origin is as a teaching language, one that can be easy to learn, promoting good coding habits. Of course the languages have taken different directions. They didn't even start off in the same way.

Before I found Python, Perl was the language with which I'd had the most success. I just happen to have had more personal joy with Python, although I keep a current Perl interpreter installed on most machines on which I work.

In my experience, Python people don't tend to be anti-Perl. We're just pro-Python.

Pro-Rocketry Media Info Source

[Anonymous Coward]

This site has been created to aid media in showing rocketry is as American as Baseball and Apple Pie. www.rocketreporter.org

Restricting hobby rocketry is bad for the USA!
1. It kills an exciting "hook" getting students to pursue the "hard" sci-tech subjects.

2. Very nearly every HPR I have ever met (sample size roughly ten thousand) has off-planet aspirations. Fact is, if we desire to continue to exist as a species, we absolutely must go off-planet, the sooner, the better.

I would think the current threat of biolgical terrorism would make this obvious. Now the BATF/AFTE is pretty much wiping an entire class of rocket developers out of existience? Are they suicidal?

Re:Whitespace not BAD, Mkay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Illogic such as yours barely deserves a reply. It is not a problem in practice, BECAUSE (in part) tools exist to help make it PRACTICAL. Even without these tools, it could still be practical to do, but perhaps require more time to implement.

VB

[IanBevan]

Examples of Python in action: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7"

And for those Visual Basic programmers confused by that sentence, here is a translation just for you:

Examples of Python in action: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Try this

[djupedal]

...insert one rectally and grunt...hard. If it doesn'remove your sphincter and at least 5cm of surrounding tissue, they're still good to go up.

Seriously, I've used ones that old with no problem. They are compressed tighter than traffic in Seoul. Supposedly, soaking them in water will negate their reactionary properties, but I always light them off to make sure they're spent.

Time to call bullshit

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

I've worked at LLNL, both with a Q clearance and before it was granted. I've been escorted by guards, but never did they touch their weapon nor behaved in anything like a threating or paranoid way. Mostly they found a comfortable chair and relaxed.

Rockets

[DMUTPeregrine]

Well, it probably means that a new type of liscense will be made. You already need faa clearance and a special liscense for engines above G type, so it probably won't be a big deal.

minor self-correction

[UselessPython]

I accidentally made a misleading statement in that last post. Regarding Guido van Rossum's original design goals, here's a quote from a recent interview:

Actually, my initial goal for Python was to serve as a second language for people who were C or C++ programmers, but who had work where writing a C program was just not effective.

Because maybe it was something you'd do only once. It was the sort of thing you'd prefer to write a shell script for, but when you got into the writing details, you found that the shell was not the ideal language--you needed more data structures, more namespaces, or maybe more performance. The first sound bite I had for Python was, "Bridge the gap between the shell and C."

So I never intended Python to be the primary language for programmers, although it has become the primary language for many Python users. It was intended to be a second language for people who were already experienced programmers, as some of the early design choices reflect. On the other hand, intuitively I probably stuck to many of ABC's design principles. Because although I had my criticisms of ABC, I borrowed many of its valuable elements, which eventually made Python a great language for people who aren't ace programmers or who are just learning. We now have a large community of people using Python as an educational language, teaching Python in schools. These people aren't and may never be professional programmers, but they still find some programming skills useful.

http://www.artima.com/intv/pyscale.html

Death to spacers!

[sigwinch]

ASCII is semantic markup. It has characters for start-of-header, start-of-text, end-of-text, file-separator, field-separator, record-separator, unit-separator, etc. (Boy did the SGML people reinvent that particular wheel badly. "I know, let's use ASCII! And let's ignore FS and use < and >. Two characters for the price of one! Oh, but then we need an ESC character. I know, we'll use &! If I ever get a time machine I'm gonna go back to the invention of SGML and give those folks a good slapping.)

If you use spaces for indention on a large project, you're stuck with that indention forever. Have a programmer with poor vision who needs bigger indention? Fire them. Need to work on a small screen with limited space? Welcome to line wrap hell. Stupid enough to try to change the indention? Watch your multi-line strings explode, and massive deltas thrash your version control system. Whereas if you use tabs and a non-brain-dead editor, it Just Works(TM).

P.S. I'm currently working on a couple of Webware apps and I'm indenting with tabs. MuhuhuHAHAHAHAHA! Tabs forever! ;-)

P.P.S. There is one thing we can agree on: people who mix tabs and spaces should be killed. Slowly. As an example to the other heathens.

Re:Death to spacers!

[Ian Bicking]

ASCII is semantic markup. It has characters for start-of-header, start-of-text, end-of-text, file-separator, field-separator, record-separator, unit-separator, etc.

And no one uses those stupid characters! Semantic ASCII is stupid, and tab is the last of many stupid characters to be discarded. And it is being discarded -- tabs get thrown away in lots of places. They are a curse!

The width-changing argument is pretty fishy, too. Does it really matter? Everyone should just use four spaces -- eight is absurd, and only very few people use two. No one uses three or five or any of that. The vision argument is even more absurd -- no one who can read can't tell the difference between four and eight spaces.

Word wrapping obviously makes more sense with spaces -- you can actually say wrap at 72 columns and people know what you mean. You can adjust your environment to that width. 72 columns doesn't mean anything when you use tabs.

Re:Death to spacers!

[Doppleganger]

Everyone should just use four spaces -- eight is absurd, and only very few people use two. No one uses three or five or any of that.

Hey... I use three-space indentation!

Actually, I think the most common tab widths I've seen have been four and five. Three would be right under those, and I've seen lots of *nix-based code that uses two. I do agree that eight is absurd, though. :-p

Re:Death to spacers!

[T. Bombadil]

Tabs are easiest to use. Its easy to convert tabs to spaces and not so easy to do the oppposite. When forced to use spaces for indents... i use one space... hehe... makes it easier for me to convert to tabs later on.

Re:Death to spacers!

[J. Random Software]

GML originated at IBM, where they wouldn't have screwed their own customers by saying "let's require ASCII!" If you want to use C0 control characters as delimiters, all you need is a SGML Declaration, but keep in mind that those characters (except U+0009 HORIZONTAL TAB) have no semantics in Unicode.

Re:Death to spacers!

[sigwinch]

The vision argument is even more absurd -- no one who can read can't tell the difference between four and eight spaces.

The millions of people with cataracts, dyslexia, macular degeneration, retinal detachments, and plain poor acuity would probably disagree. Not to mention with extremely poor vision who use speech synthesizers (which have to programmatically guess semantic indention from spaces, yet never upset the spaces and cause erroneous version control deltas) and Braille terminals (upon which four spaces are a waste of precious real estate).

I also disagree with the position that semantic encoding of programs is stupid. It should not be our goal to edit using a virtual 80-column card. Editors should be getting more sophisticated, not less. Block scoping should be marked-up, making it trivially adaptable to different output devices, and making code-folding trivial. Documentation should be editable inline as HTML, complete with diagrams.

Re:Death to spacers!

[Ian Bicking]

You are still being absurd. If you can't identify indentation of four spaces, you can't visually read code. If your vision is poor and you need to read with very big fonts, you will have very big spaces.

In those cases where people cannot visually read, but must use other methods, the effort of handling consecutive spaces is not significant. You can preprocess the file if you want, or have a reader that understands levels of indentation, or something. A naive implementation of a reader is going to be painful with any programming language, regardless of the type of indentation.

As for semantic encoding, you're again being absurd. If you want to express block structure in a semantic manner, tabs don't cut it either. You have to parse the lanuage properly, and parsing spaces is not significantly more difficult than parsing tabs. The only place where tabs are easier is naive regex-based parsing. The Python syntax is not primitive, and trying to understand it on a character level is futile.

The real point is that smart tools can deal with spaces for indentation just fine. Dumb tools deal fine with spaces too, though they may introduce slightly more overhead. The same cannot be said for tabs.

Re:Death to spacers!

[Tassach]

I do agree that eight is absurd, though

Not for SQL. Anything less than 8 tabs sucks for formatting SQL statements (10 is actually better because then ORDER BY lines up nicely, but 8 is the de-facto standard).

as a former schemer

[Trepidity]

I'd say it's because ML's type system means I'll never have to see error in car at runtime again.

Re:as a former schemer

[__past__]

Mostly because you have to fight the compilers idea of typing so long that your app will be outdated when it's done anyway.

"Strong typing is for weak minds." -- R. Gabriel

This can be done - python has ways to cheat

[xant]

Don't tell anyone I told you this, but you can cheat Python's indenting, and the purpose you're describing is a good reason to use it.

def foo(blah):
do.some(buggy) # operation
# the next line ends with a backslash to indicate the line continues
\
print buggy
return stuff

An unclosed piece of punctuation: (,[,{, etc. will also let you do this, but the backslash is probably what you want. After any kind of line continuation syntax (punctuation or backslash) the next indent doesn't matter.

Python's whitespace enforcement is nothing but a blessing. This from someone who's coded in C, C++, Perl, Java, and more.

Re:This can be done - python has ways to cheat

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a cool tip, thanks :-) I might have to give it another shot someday...

Compiler Error?

[KagatoLNX]

Actually, this is one of the weirder (and cooler) things about Python. It doesn't give a compiler error, you get an EXCEPTION!!!

In Python, syntax errors and the like generate exceptions and are, thus, trappable. It is very strange for a program, at runtime, to give errors you usually would expect at load-time. It also can be really useful.

In Python, all errors are exception.

In general, you don't really notice the lack of braces. On one hand you might think "how do I know where a block ends?". Well, it ends were it unindents.

Heck indentation was introduced to add more information to the braces. Python just notes that the braces just aren't needed anymore.

The cleaner thing really is a benefit. See how much you enjoy debugging other people's large perl projects. It sucks. Python is very nice. Heck, it takes very little to drop into interpreter and interrogate the program. Very cool.

Re:"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[The Qube]

Gasolene is not explosive - it is flammable. And 62.5 grams of it, or any amount really, would not be sufficient to act as a serious rocket propellant of any sort.

Liquid oxygen on the other hand is very explosive and is not easily used in "amateur-type" rockets.

Re:"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[gnalre]

Can't you just reclassify rockets as firearms, and then your rights would be protected under the constitution

Google Does _not_ Use Python for Anything Serious

[Anonymous Coward]

The Google spider was _once_ written in Python a long time ago... no longer. Stop beating a dead horse.

Big, legal rockets

[kinnell]

You can make a perfectly legal 6.25 kg monster rocket by together 100 62.5g rockets with gaffer tape. Problem solved.

How much propellant can I put in a bullet?

[podperson]

It's good to see restrictions on the use of things that might, conceivably be used by ingenious people as weapons. Luckily, the NRA is busy protecting our right to use objects intended to be used by idiots as weapons.

Model Rockets = Bad, Butane Lighters = Good

[Vigilante42]

This is so funny. Model Rocket Engines are a hazard to humanity and can not, of course, be transported on Airplanes.

Butane Lighters on the other hand are perfectly safe and exactly the thing one wants to have inside an airplane cabin so that deranged people like Richard Reid can use them to explode bombs.

Where's the logic, reason, understanding, intelligence...oh, sorry, had momentarily forgotten who it was that paid for the current government in the first place. Sigh.

Full story.

Re:"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[sjames]

Gasolene is not explosive - it is flammable. And 62.5 grams of it, or any amount really, would not be sufficient to act as a serious rocket propellant of any sort. Liquid oxygen on the other hand is very explosive and is not easily used in "amateur-type" rockets.

When combined with LOX, gasoline is far more dangerous (and has a great deal more terrorist potential) than a composite rocket motor. That's the point, demonstrate the stupidity of the law by building a perfectly legal 'blockbuster' of a rocket to replace the reletively safe but onerously regulated composite engine. (by blockbuster, I mean literally could take out a city block if it malfunctioned).

BTW, I'm not serious! The fact that it could be done by a sufficiently insane person is enough. BTW, a gasoline rocket could work fine, it was good enough for Goddard.

why nitwits

[sjames]

Probably because only a power hungry nitwit would expose himself to the rabid press that cares about every goofy thing he did in college, and nothing about what he might think, then spend millions of dollars running for office just so he can beat his chest ineffectually and trumpet "I'm in CHARGE!!"

There are exceptions to the above, of course. They want to be in office to make a difference. However, they have to be able to put up with all of the nitwits they will be surrounded by and be stealthy about their intelligence and capabilities so the nitwits don't get rid of them before they can make the rest look bad.

Any time new laws about technology come up in the news, I can think of nothing besides the gorilla in 'Planet of the Apes' burning the computer printout because he can't stand for something he doesn't understand to exist.

This is just so wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"So you are correct, changing our policy of messing with other people's lives could keep things like September 11 from happening in the future."

Wrong.

The US as the world's leading Military and Economic power will always be the target for nutcases like this.

The best defense is for other people to believe (a) The US will go ape-shit if it is attacked (b) The US is so friggin crazy that we will not only kill you, but a couple of neighboring countries "just to be sure".

Seriuosly, these people who do this are one step up from filthy animals. Animals don't have a complex range of emotions. For these guys, you make them so fricking afraid that they just go and attack each other.

That's why the Iraq/Iran war was so perfect and I still don't understand why the US intervened to stop it.

Does it effect Black Powder Guns too?

[nurb432]

Powder for them come in large tin containers, so they have killed off this hobby too?

Not many terrorists use a single shot muzzle loader..

Python - I HATE IT!!!

[flsniper]

I hate Pythons, Cobras, Boa's, Vipers, Rattlers! Snakes that I don't like are: Dead Ones Live Ones Big Ones Small Ones Venemous Ones Non-venemous Ones Now lets have no more reptile talk and talk about Technology instead!

Large numbers of bullets now illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

If I read this correctly, you're not allowed to ship more than 62.5 grams of black powder, a.k.a. gun powder. I don't know exactly how much gun powder is in the average bullet, but I'm taking a stab in the dark and saying a .45 bullet would have a gram. That would mean carrying a hundred pack of bullets is now illegal.

Can someone tell the NRA? And then arrest them?

Re:"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[thing12]

Liquid oxygen on the other hand is very explosive and is not easily used in "amateur-type" rockets.

No it isn't... LOX is used to simply speed up the oxidization (burning/explosion) of a fuel. It's compressed, but in that respect it's no more explosive than liquid Helium. A rich oxygen environment helps things burn much faster than normal air, but the oxygen itself is not explosive.

Through a channel that doesn't preserve indent?

[yerricde]

Then how can Python code be sent through a channel that does not preserve indentation, other than through something like uuencode (which would trip the lameness filter)?

Re:Through a channel that doesn't preserve indent?

[Chmarr]

Is this a problem with python, or with the channel that doesn't even allow for leading spaces to lines?

I don't think "can be posted to slashdot as comments without some non-standard befunkery" is a particually good feature point, especially since slashdot still screws up any indenting that would make a piece of C or Perl code readable.

For other channels you can leave the python as-is (since I don't know of any other channels that screw it up the same way slashdot does), you can use pyindent.py, or just encode it.

Re:"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[trg83]

The only problem with this is that the 2nd Amendment declares you have the right to own, keep, and bear arms, theoretically to provide a deterrent against a domestic or foreign tyrant. The 2nd Amendment never explicitly gives you the right to fire these arms, however. I think this may be because the framers of the Constitution recognized that if someone was going to go and use their weapons against the government or innocent citizens, they should know they would be held responsible in some manner for their actions. As a somewhat naive pre-law student, my interpretation is that the 2nd Amendment protects possession of weapons for the purpose of deterrence. If you are happy having a whole bunch of rockets you can't fire, perhaps you could justify them with your Constitutional firearms rights. This is not a flame bait, just my attempt at interpreting the Constitution.

Re:"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[einhverfr]

BTW, I'm not serious! The fact that it could be done by a sufficiently insane person is enough. BTW, a gasoline rocket could work fine, it was good enough for Goddard.

Actually I think they would work very well, though I am not aware of anyone using gasolene as rocket fuel. Goddard used Kerosene as did the Saturn V that sent men to the moon. Perhaps Diesel would be better than gasoline.You would still need pumps, etc. for the fuel, but the o2 could be simply released via valves since it is compressed.

Python user camps ...

[jc42]

You forgot the camp that I fall into:

Used perl, tried python, found TFM heavy going, and relegated it to the "Learn more about this when you have the spare time" category.

I have several of the O'Reilly books on python, and have spent time learning. With perl, I found that a few chapters into The Book, I was able to write useful, fully-functional programs with ease. With python, I find that I'm still wondering WTF the actual syntax of this language is, and constantly being surprised by what my code actually does.

Thus, on the basis of advice in the python newsgroup, I first bought Mark Lutz's "Programming Python". Lots of really powerful-looking stuff there. But nowhere in the book, apparently, is there a description of the language's basic syntax. It would be really useful to find a clear description of just how the language uses things like quotes, commas and parentheses, not to mention tokens like "->" and "=>". Such trivia are critical if one is to write valid programs in a language, and the python crowd seems to think that documenting them is for more lowly creatures than themselves.

I conclude that it's a language for someone with a lot more brains than I have. Or with a lot more time.

The basic problem that I've seen is that python docs seem aimed at someone who already knows the language. When I'm looking at a piece of python code, and see a construct that I don't yet understand, I can't find an explanation in the docs. So learning from example is very slow going, and it's easy to put it off until you have some spare time.

Maybe this is because (as has been suggested in the newsgroup) I'm a f**king idiot who should get a clue. Now if I could just find those clues. Maybe I should wait for the "Python for Dummies" book, except that it may be a long wait.

Of course, the perl .misc newsgroup has its own popultion of arrogant jerks who seem bent on driving out newbies. This does seem to go with good, powerful lnguages (tcl excepted). Or maybe they're ringers from another user community who are just trying to scare newbies away. But this is certainly effective at preventing people from learning from the experts.

Anyhow, I'd say that, from what I know of python, it sure looks like a useful tool. Now if I could only learn enough of it to be able to write nontrivial programs ...

Amusing anecdote: One of my first attempts, of course, was to write the tradition "Hello, world!" program in python. I read TFM, made a bunch of guesses, and they all just got me incomprehensible error messages. And then I made the mistake of feeding my hello.pl script to python. It worked.

I thought "That's interesting ..."

But this approach only goes so far. Discovering the syntax of a language by feeding it random text and seeing what it does is a very time-consuming way of learning.

Re:"Simple" Solution to rocketry problem

[sjames]

If I were insane, I'd use the flow of O2 to drive the pump for the propellant.

Self-obfuscation

[dargaud]

Now I've been programming for 25 years (and I'm only 34), so I know a shovelful of languages. Last year I needed to interface some scientific package to the web, so I used Perl as it seemed the right thing to do.

If C has taught me something it is that it can be obfuscated, but also with some discipline ('software engineering') it can be made quite clear and maintainable. No such thing in Perl. Two months later, I couldn't understand anything I'd written. Now I've never heard of Python before, so are there some kind souls who can tell me why they switched from one to the other, personally ?

Re:Self-obfuscation

[Valdrax]

Python is designed with readability and maintainability as a goal. It was also meant to be useable as a teaching language. Perl was designed to encompass the functionality of several terse scripting languages and tools that came before it -- awk, sed, and shell scripting with a healty dose of C thrown in.

It's a matter of priority and it shows. In Perl, the design philosophy is "There's More Than One Way To Do It." This makes Perl very flexible and capable of doing a lot of powerful things in a very short space. Python comes from basically the opposite philosophy -- that there should be very few commonly used tools to go about the same task. It is far easier to learn how to do just one simple thing in Perl because there are numerous techniques that you can stumble on to do something. However, it's far easier to gain a grasp of Python sufficient to understand 90% of all Python scripts out there than it is to understand 90% of all the Perl scripts out there due to excess of ways to go about a task in Perl.

Furthermore, Python eschews the "modem line-noise" philosophy of syntax that Perl learned from the scripting languages it inherited from. It is clear, legible, and it's very easy to understand what a piece of unfamiliar code is doing. The number one complaint anyone who loves Perl has about Python is the fact that Python uses whitespace to determine whether code is part of the same block or not. Code that's part of the same block is all indented to the same position. It clearly visually lays out what code is part of the same block of execution. I find that most people who object to this the loudest are the people who love to write the horrid, unstructured, obfuscated code that gives Perl its bad reputation. Python doesn't let you get away with packing 10 lines of normal code into a single line of unspaced puncuation and single letters.

If my bias isn't clear by now, I prefer Python for exactly this reason. Not only can I read my own code months later, but I can read the code of people other than myself having never seen it before. Other people's Perl code for me always involves a thick language reference and a note pad and pencil to decypher.

Caveat:
While Python's just about as close to executable pseudo-code as you're going to get, it's not a magical English-to-Software translation tool. Your problem with reading your own Perl was probably mostly because you learned the language just enough to do the problem you wanted and didn't touch it for months afterwards. Python is much easier to read, but any language can allow you to produce code that you can't read months later if you don't really learn the language the first time and just let yourself forget it afterwards. The first time I learned Python was for a small bit of bug fixing I had to do at work. I didn't touch it for six months afterwards, and I had a hard time understanding it at first when I looked back at it later. Of course, it was much, much easier to relearn than Perl was, and I was able to understand the pre-existing code I had to fix very rapidly the first time, but it wasn't just like riding a bicycle. YMMV.

Re:Self-obfuscation

[broter]

Wow. You've convinced me to check out python. I've been an off and on perl coder, but usually stick to the C/C++/Java flavor of typed compiled languages.

Although I push for perl over some of the half baked solutions that get flown around here, I must admit that unless you're *very* comfortable with the language, your perl readability level is going to be crap. If you know you're gonna have to review of modify a noncoder's work, push for something else...

So thanks for the tip!

-RB

Interview about Guido from Python

[Anonymous Coward]

See a recent interview about Guido from Python. check here, english version is just after the french one.

Re:Whitespace not BAD, Mkay...

[akawaka]

But! Who Indents the Indenter!?

Iraq

[Shade, The]

On the other hand, Iraq is a completely different situation. With WMD, Saddam has an extortion tool that he can use - cave to his demands, or we lose Cleveland. He wants money, he wants assets un-frozen, he wants us to abandon our support of Israel, and he will want us to sit on our hands when he and his friends invade their neighbors. Don't like it? Lose Miami, too.

Even if he had WMD capable of that scale of destruction, such a stunt wouldn't work. The US wouldn't cave in to his demands. No developed country would, really. And what's Saddam going to do about it? Sure, he could try nuking the US or something, but he'll only get at most one hit before the US retaliates. So it would be suicide. Saddam isn't the kind of guy to do that; look at all his doubles, his bodyguard constantly by his side. He's not a fanatic. Just a ruthless dictator desperately clinging to power.

I don't see that

[Trepidity]

If your program has a type error in it, it's almost always because it has a bug in it. This will eventually be a problem; the difference being that in ML you take care of it at compile-time, while in Scheme you may not notice the bug for years if it's in some little-run branch of the code.

Re:I don't see that

[__past__]

You loose a lot of flexibility. For example, consider a list where you put all kinds of stuff in, and dynamically dispatch on the type of whatever you fetch from it.

Sure, you can create a union type for that in ML, and use pattern matching for the dispatch. But what happens if you want to handle unknown types of data, with some default behaviour? Or if you just want to add some new kind of stuff? You'd have to modify the type definition and the dispatching function for every type you add. Eww.

That said, don't take the Gabriel quote too serious. I do agree that static typing has it's places - I just like to choose myself which approach is better for a given problem. Common Lisp allows me to do that; neither ML nor Scheme do, AFAIK.

Bah!

[Balinares]

Just to demistify this often seen interesting, but irrelevant comparison:

> Yeah, I really enjoyed that idea when I was forced to work in Fortran

In Python, you indent the way you want. Tabs, spaces, as many or as few of them as you want. As long as you don't screw it up (and you'd have to do that on purpose, in my experience, with the autoindentation feature of all serious code editors), Python will understand it.

In Fortran 77, it was basically the meaning of a character that depended on the column (not whitespace, note) where it was: label, code, or 'line continues on next line'. Those were the last punch card days, you know. Damn, I've hated that too. I, however, have no problem with Python's syntax.

I'll agree, though, that such a change in habits isn't easy to manage, unrelatedly to the increase of productivity it eventually leads to. Bah. Funny that, of all people, we geeks should be so set in our ways... I'm glad I managed to integrate the Python syntax, though, it's really a great language for complex projects (though Perl is still a little more adapted for small to medium sized throw-away scripts).

Re:Bah!

[Tassach]

Perl is still a little more adapted for small to medium sized throw-away scripts

Personally, I prefer using awk for little one-off projects and throwaway scripts. (Of course, I'm probably just showing my age). IMHO, Perl is to awk as C++ is to C -- a useful but bloated extension to a small and elegant language.

Perl vs. Python? Bah, BS

[Balinares]

Why do people insist on comparing Perl with Python? Python is a lot closer to Java in terms of types of programs it will be the best tool for (actually, switching from Java to Python often makes sense in terms of productivity and code maintainability). The most revealing sign is probably that while Perl opens the standard input by default and lets you access it directly with a dedicated keyword, assuming by default that you'll be parsing stuff, Python doesn't, not making risky (for Python) assumptions that would end up being wrong most of the time anyway.

Basically, for a small to medium sized script, Perl is a more effective tool. For anything that will require reusability and modularity (as in, code orthogonality), Python is much more fitting. I guess that a good example could be a comparison of Slashcode (done in Perl) and Zope (done in Python). Comparable idea ('Output stuff on the Web'), but totally different scope.

Just one last thing. Because coding in Perl is fun and it's easy to get carried away at it, some people will try to force it into projects much more complex than it was ever meant for -- resulting in some of those unspeakable code messes we've all seen at some point. Don't let that fool you. For the tasks within its intended scope, Perl is really a good language.

So, which is better? Depends almost solely on what you want to do. If Python has more visibility in academic circles and alike, it's simply because it's a great language to learn about advanced programming concepts and good software design, not because it's 'absolutely better' than Perl. No matter what the biggots on either side will tell you.

Oh, indeed there is.

[halfgeek]

Not that this is on topic by any means, but here is a response.

Of the established solutions for compiling Perl into executables, at the forefront are IndigoStar's Perl2EXE and ActiveState's PerlApp. Both are commercial products. I've not had a reasonable impetus to buy either, but programs like AmphetaDesk, an RSS aggregator written in Perl, make impressive use of Perl2EXE. There may be a point in the future at which I might happily buy it--it just depends on the end I'm trying to meet with a given project. Sometimes preaching the freedom-of-software concept makes us forget that things can be worth money...

There's also perlcc, which comes standard with Perl, but it's in a "very experimental" stage and not recommended for production code.

So, there are options.

Of course, you aren't being a zealot by mentioning the advantages of one language over another. I've enjoyed reading all of the (reasonable) point/counterpoint comparisons between Python and Perl. I personally don't do enough programming in any of the areas where Python surpasses Perl's usefulness to make a serious switch. Perhaps in the future, I will.

What doesn't make sense is one's assumption that because he writes code in one language instead of another he is somehow of a superior race of beings. If there's any measure of superiority to be had, it more appropriately belongs to those who are familiar with (or even those who are willing to learn) more languages and environments and all of the necessary tricks and idioms to write an intelligent solution within any one of them.

But even if this is something that properly defines one's superiority, making a nuisance of oneself screaming about said superiority does an incredible lot to negate it.

Generic segue, an article about the BOFH becoming passé caught my eye today...

no Makefiles for you!

[Russ Nelson]

I suppose, then, that you don't use Makefiles. An action line in a Makefile must start with a tab.
-russ

Re:no Makefiles for you!

[Mr. Slippery]

I suppose, then, that you don't use Makefiles. An action line in a Makefile must start with a tab.

Ahem. I said (sarcastically) "it's certainly a joy when dealing with makefiles."

And whoever came up with that idea deserves a severe beating..."What the heck's wrong with this makefile? It looks just fine. Whaddya mean I've got spaces instead of tabs? How the fsck am I supposed to see the difference???? ARRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! KILL!! KILL!! KILL!!!"

Wow, I'm really surprised

[Fencepost]

Tooting the Python horn a little then, there are at least two good and free ways to generate executables from Python programs. There was a good-sized discussion of this on comp.lang.python in early January.

The two most dominant options appear to be py2exe and Gordon McMillan's Installer, which also has a nice summary of other options as well. I personally use Installer and find it to work just fine; that said I don't have any experience with its GUI capabilities - I know it's supposed to have decent support for the common Python GUI techniques, but all my stuff is command-line driven.