Well, I don't really know python, but x.__class__=mypackage.MyClass appears to be something that changes the class of x. The perl equilivant is bless $x, "NewClassName".
Lists of strings and hashes of strings and lists are just as easy in perl as your python example. In fact, the syntax is almost the same ('=>' or ',' instead of ':').
And PLEASE don't blame the language for unreadable code unless it's intercal or the like. Place the blame where it belongs, with the programmer. I'm sick of people saying perl is unreadable and then brandishing about something written by someone who's never touched the language before - or an entry for an obfuscated code contest. The same goes for any language of course. The poster you replied too was right about code readability.
They're both powerful, useful languages. Some people like perl. Some people like python. Some like both. Some don't like either. Great! Use what works best for you.
Unfortunately, even Google is fast becoming useless - practically every search I do on it results in thousands of mirrors of some page describing some RPM that I care nothing about.
Search engines act like Lem's Demon of the Second Order right now - returning lots of information, but very little of it of any use or relevance. I've thought a bit about ways to improve it - say, a perl script that queries half a dozen search engines, and uses the pages that appear in a majority of the results, applying simple rules to them, based on markup (Like giving keywords that appear in a heading element higher priority than those that show up in a paragraph) and the number of other pages in the search area that link to them... Not AI, just a bunch of heuristics. Adding hierarchy-based rules (Ie, page B is only found via a link on page A, and A and B have similar URLs, so B might be a sub-page of A, and shouldn't be considered if A passes everything, because you'll get to it from A anyways) is an interesting possibility if I ever get around to writing something like this. I think the same rules could apply to static and dynamic pages, though. No need to treat them differently, aside from result caching.
Re:Hard science fiction is soft
on
Darwin's Radio
·
· Score: 1
You're thinking of the integral trees from the Smoke Ring series. Vaguely the same idea (A band of life all the way around a star), different implementation. The Ringworld is an artificial construct spinning fast enough to create normal gravity, while the Smoke Ring is natural, a gas torus with a core that has enough pressure and the right composition to be habitable by humans, despite the lack of ground and slight gravity. And really huge free-floating trees that somehow don't spin around like whirligigs.
It's possible. I feel the same way - I picked up Mists of Avalon once, and it bored me to death so badly I couldn't finish it, which is quite an accomplishment. After reading the posts here, I'm going to give her a second try, with whichever of the other highly reccomended books I find first at the library. Even the best authors have bad books, and different people think different works are the bad ones. Second chances can't hurt.
Slashdot Mirror
Lists of strings and hashes of strings and lists are just as easy in perl as your python example. In fact, the syntax is almost the same ('=>' or ',' instead of ':').
And PLEASE don't blame the language for unreadable code unless it's intercal or the like. Place the blame where it belongs, with the programmer. I'm sick of people saying perl is unreadable and then brandishing about something written by someone who's never touched the language before - or an entry for an obfuscated code contest. The same goes for any language of course. The poster you replied too was right about code readability.
They're both powerful, useful languages. Some people like perl. Some people like python. Some like both. Some don't like either. Great! Use what works best for you.
Unfortunately, even Google is fast becoming useless - practically every search I do on it results in thousands of mirrors of some page describing some RPM that I care nothing about.
Search engines act like Lem's Demon of the Second Order right now - returning lots of information, but very little of it of any use or relevance. I've thought a bit about ways to improve it - say, a perl script that queries half a dozen search engines, and uses the pages that appear in a majority of the results, applying simple rules to them, based on markup (Like giving keywords that appear in a heading element higher priority than those that show up in a paragraph) and the number of other pages in the search area that link to them... Not AI, just a bunch of heuristics. Adding hierarchy-based rules (Ie, page B is only found via a link on page A, and A and B have similar URLs, so B might be a sub-page of A, and shouldn't be considered if A passes everything, because you'll get to it from A anyways) is an interesting possibility if I ever get around to writing something like this. I think the same rules could apply to static and dynamic pages, though. No need to treat them differently, aside from result caching.
You're thinking of the integral trees from the Smoke Ring series. Vaguely the same idea (A band of life all the way around a star), different implementation. The Ringworld is an artificial construct spinning fast enough to create normal gravity, while the Smoke Ring is natural, a gas torus with a core that has enough pressure and the right composition to be habitable by humans, despite the lack of ground and slight gravity. And really huge free-floating trees that somehow don't spin around like whirligigs.
It's possible. I feel the same way - I picked up Mists of Avalon once, and it bored me to death so badly I couldn't finish it, which is quite an accomplishment. After reading the posts here, I'm going to give her a second try, with whichever of the other highly reccomended books I find first at the library. Even the best authors have bad books, and different people think different works are the bad ones. Second chances can't hurt.
Or just use lynx. Who needs pictures, after all? :)