[IronPython] Suspending, saving script execution?
M. David Peterson
xmlhacker at gmail.com
Tue Jan 30 20:00:08 PST 2007
I'll just stop there and hope you can forgive me for the rest... ;)
On 1/30/07, M. David Peterson <xmlhacker at gmail.com> wrote:
> You know, I have heard so many good and wonderful things about TCL, yet no
> very little to nothing about it.
> Seems obviouis I need to change that...
> Thanks for the info/history lesson -- need to dig deeper into this topic,
> as well, though to be honest, its not surprising to me to see proof that,
> yet again, what's old is new, and what's new, old.
> As per a comment I recently left to a post from Rick Jelliffe (oh yes, of
> Wikigate *FAME* ;)) regarding Schematron and "Cagle's Law of Contant
> Though not specifically brought to the surface, much like Occam's Razor [
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor>],
> > In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon,
> > one should embrace the less complicated formulation.
> > Which I believe is *EXACTLY* what Schematron represents.
> > As a side, but related note, isn't funny how it's the first technology
> > that tends to be the most correct as solving the problem at hand, though no
> > one is really quite sure how to use it properly, or maybe better said, what
> > to use it for. The second attempt is filled with so many ideas on how to
> > make the first version better, though without any better understanding of
> > what it will be used for, and as such seems to so overshoot the mark that a
> > third time is required to fix all the problems of the second, before finally
> > realizing that it was the first that was most correct in the first place.
> "You mean John McCarthy, Guy Steele, and Alan Kay were right this whole
> DAMN IT!, if that doesn't just blow the last 20 years of so-called
> "computer language progress"! Guess it's time to crack open the "history"
> books again to see what's in store for us next...
> On 1/30/07, Gutfreund, Yechezkal < ygutfreund at draper.com> wrote:
> > Hmm.. Shades of Smalltalk-72 (not 80, which compiled methods, but
> > rather -72 which parsed and executed method calls as messages on receipt).
> > It was rejected for performance reasons in Smalltalk-76, which went too far
> > towards the C# strictly bound, and a compromise was found in -80.
> > BTW, Ousterout made a strong case for this sort of paradigm in TCL and
> > distributed TCL.
> > I like the paradigm for a lot of things that I do, but I realize it's
> > limitation for other scenarios.
> M. David Peterson
> http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354
M. David Peterson
http://mdavid.name | http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2354
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the users