3 ms·

I feel like this post is full of details papered over to prove its point. Others have brought up the fortran details, and with an extremely limited knowledge o

I feel like this post is full of details papered over to prove its point. Others have brought up the fortran details, and with an extremely limited knowledge of fortran, I'll focus on a python detail. You absolutely doesn't need an import statement to perform a sqrt, as you can raise a number to a fractional exponent ( sqrt(x) = x * (1/2)).

twobitshifter 5y ago
x ** (1/2) You mean, and one could make a point about that being a non-standard way of raising exponents for a complete novice
kragen 5y ago
In Python 2 you have to use x**(1/2.0) unless you from __future__ import division.
- wk_end 5y ago
  I believe that in Python 1.3 you have to use pow(x, 1/2.0), but that's hardly relevant.
  - kragen 5y ago
    There are several orders of magnitude more people using Python 2 than Python 1.3.
    - wk_end 5y ago
      Python 2.7 is 12 years old at this point. Twelve years! That's the difference between Windows XP and Windows 2.1. It's completely unsupported software. There may be people still using it (sadly, embarrassingly), but anyone choosing to teach it to new programmers - what this article is about - is sabotaging them. Its quirks are irrelevant here.
      - kragen 5y ago
        This makes no sense. C is almost 50 years old, English is a bit over 1000 years old, and Euclidean geometry is something like 2500 years old. It's not embarrassing to use any of them. If Python 2 users are failing to successfully organize among themselves well enough to maintain their interpreter, which is licensed in a way that guarantees that they can do that, I guess that's sort of embarrassing, but trying to shame them for using it isn't going to help them organize better.
        wk_end 5y ago
        Comparing Python 2.7 - a release of software - with programming languages (Python is 30 years old and I'm not complaining about the use of it), human languages, and systems of mathematics makes no sense. When discussing teaching C to beginners, no one is insisting on bringing up considerations for the C compilers of 1972 or their dialects. When discussing teaching new speakers of English how to ask someone their name, no one says, "yes, but in old English you'd need to say 'Hwæt hātest þū?'". I can't really come up with a pithy dismissal regarding Euclid, but not to get too metaphysical, the idea that Python 2.7, C, or English - human constructs - are comparable to Euclidean geometry, which is a sort of immutable construct of logic and/or human cognition, is just plain bizarre. Ideas are timeless; software isn't. I don't begrudge us for using Unix per se - it's a damn fine idea after all - but as elegant as it is, there's no good reason to be running V7 these days. Or, to return to a different OS: again - in the year 2000, Windows 2.1 was 12 years old. Would you have said then, "there's nothing wrong with using Windows 2.1; after all, English is 1000 years old and we still use it?"
        kragen 5y ago
        Maybe the fact that you're looking for pithy dismissals instead of seeking to learn something from the conversation suggests that conversing with you is not worthwhile. Whether 1/2 gives you 0 or 0.5 is not an issue of the implementation; it's an issue of the language semantics. Software is applied mathematics. It doesn't break down or wear out like an old car. There's nothing wrong with using Windows 2.1 if you like it, but it wasn't very good in the first place, and there are legal problems with copyright law that prevent you from fixing its problems and making it run well on modern hardware.

twobitshifter 5y ago

x ** (1/2) You mean, and one could make a point about that being a non-standard way of raising exponents for a complete novice

kragen 5y ago

In Python 2 you have to use x**(1/2.0) unless you from __future__ import division.

wk_end 5y ago
I believe that in Python 1.3 you have to use pow(x, 1/2.0), but that's hardly relevant.
- kragen 5y ago
  There are several orders of magnitude more people using Python 2 than Python 1.3.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    Python 2.7 is 12 years old at this point. Twelve years! That's the difference between Windows XP and Windows 2.1. It's completely unsupported software. There may be people still using it (sadly, embarrassingly), but anyone choosing to teach it to new programmers - what this article is about - is sabotaging them. Its quirks are irrelevant here.
    - kragen 5y ago
      This makes no sense. C is almost 50 years old, English is a bit over 1000 years old, and Euclidean geometry is something like 2500 years old. It's not embarrassing to use any of them. If Python 2 users are failing to successfully organize among themselves well enough to maintain their interpreter, which is licensed in a way that guarantees that they can do that, I guess that's sort of embarrassing, but trying to shame them for using it isn't going to help them organize better.
      - wk_end 5y ago
        Comparing Python 2.7 - a release of software - with programming languages (Python is 30 years old and I'm not complaining about the use of it), human languages, and systems of mathematics makes no sense. When discussing teaching C to beginners, no one is insisting on bringing up considerations for the C compilers of 1972 or their dialects. When discussing teaching new speakers of English how to ask someone their name, no one says, "yes, but in old English you'd need to say 'Hwæt hātest þū?'". I can't really come up with a pithy dismissal regarding Euclid, but not to get too metaphysical, the idea that Python 2.7, C, or English - human constructs - are comparable to Euclidean geometry, which is a sort of immutable construct of logic and/or human cognition, is just plain bizarre. Ideas are timeless; software isn't. I don't begrudge us for using Unix per se - it's a damn fine idea after all - but as elegant as it is, there's no good reason to be running V7 these days. Or, to return to a different OS: again - in the year 2000, Windows 2.1 was 12 years old. Would you have said then, "there's nothing wrong with using Windows 2.1; after all, English is 1000 years old and we still use it?"
        kragen 5y ago
        Maybe the fact that you're looking for pithy dismissals instead of seeking to learn something from the conversation suggests that conversing with you is not worthwhile. Whether 1/2 gives you 0 or 0.5 is not an issue of the implementation; it's an issue of the language semantics. Software is applied mathematics. It doesn't break down or wear out like an old car. There's nothing wrong with using Windows 2.1 if you like it, but it wasn't very good in the first place, and there are legal problems with copyright law that prevent you from fixing its problems and making it run well on modern hardware.