Guido at Google
JB
he accepted it!!
long life to Guido & Goole ! many things to come ;)
ju²
Fuzzyman
your paranoia levels).
You got any references on that ?
I was just thinking that the open source offerings from google are
actually pretty pitiful - considering the time investment they have put
into developing software systems. (Summer of Code not-withstanding of
course).
I wonder if this heralds google finally upgrading from Python 2.2 ;-)
All the best,
Harald Armin Massa
> he accepted it!!
Isn't Guido-Sans official title BDFL? *wink*
whatever, if it's true, congratulations and best wishes. Now there is
one *bot and the BDFL at google, we have still 3 bots in the wild, do
we?
Suggesting to name a Rigobot ....
Harald
Alex Martelli
> That's potentially very good news. (Or slightly sinister -depending on
> your paranoia levels).
>
> You got any references on that ?
I don't think there was any official announcement, but it's true -- he
sits about 15 meters away from me;-).
> I was just thinking that the open source offerings from google are
> actually pretty pitiful - considering the time investment they have put
> into developing software systems. (Summer of Code not-withstanding of
> course).
The key technical person for opensource at Google isn't Guido and isn't
me -- rather, I'd focus on Greg Stein (whose contributions to open
source have been very wide-ranging, and who's been our engineering
manager for opensource for quite a while now... not a secret, you can
read about that on Greg's own blog). If you want more opensource from
us, he's most probably the best person to bug about it!-). I'm sure
that, being the chairman of the Apache Software Foundation (the VP of
the ASF is also a Google employee), he can bend your ears about that;-).
> I wonder if this heralds google finally upgrading from Python 2.2 ;-)
We currently use multiple versions of Python, and I personally don't see
that changing overnight. But, we'll see.
Alex
Fuzzyman
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Fuzzyman <fuzz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's potentially very good news. (Or slightly sinister -depending on
> > your paranoia levels).
> >
> > You got any references on that ?
>
> I don't think there was any official announcement, but it's true -- he
> sits about 15 meters away from me;-).
>
Cool - pass on my regards and thanks to him. ;-)
>
> > I was just thinking that the open source offerings from google are
> > actually pretty pitiful - considering the time investment they have put
> > into developing software systems. (Summer of Code not-withstanding of
> > course).
>
> The key technical person for opensource at Google isn't Guido and isn't
> me -- rather, I'd focus on Greg Stein (whose contributions to open
> source have been very wide-ranging, and who's been our engineering
> manager for opensource for quite a while now... not a secret, you can
> read about that on Greg's own blog). If you want more opensource from
> us, he's most probably the best person to bug about it!-). I'm sure
> that, being the chairman of the Apache Software Foundation (the VP of
> the ASF is also a Google employee), he can bend your ears about that;-).
>
Well, employing key open-source personnel and supporting them in their
work *probably* counts as helping the open-source world.
OTOH they (you...) must have worked on/with tremendous systems - like
load balancing software as one example off the top of my head. I guess
these are the competitive edge of google - and also there is a lot of
work turning in house systems into 'released' ones, even if the will is
there.
Even so - the code that has been directly released by google is
relatively slender.
>
> > I wonder if this heralds google finally upgrading from Python 2.2 ;-)
>
> We currently use multiple versions of Python, and I personally don't see
> that changing overnight. But, we'll see.
>
I've no axe to grind on that one.
All the best,
Fuzzyman
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/index.shtml
>
> Alex
Nicola Musatti
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Fuzzyman <fuzz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's potentially very good news. (Or slightly sinister -depending on
> > your paranoia levels).
> >
> > You got any references on that ?
>
> I don't think there was any official announcement, but it's true -- he
> sits about 15 meters away from me;-).
Tsk, tsk, all that brainpower sitting so close together. That's not the
way to do risk management! I think you should suggest scattering
resources worldwide... now, it just so happens that there's an empty
five floor building a block and a half from my home...
By the way, I hear that you've become collegues also with Matt Austern,
formerly of Apple, and Danny Thorpe, formerly of Borland. I guess we
mere mortals don't stand a chance of being hired, but if the trend
continues there are going to be a lot of very interesting positions
opening everywhere else :-)
Cheers,
Nicola Musatti
rbt
> I don't think there was any official announcement, but it's true -- he
> sits about 15 meters away from me;-).
For Americans: 15 meters is roughly 50 feet.
Martin P. Hellwig
Well they could have used google for that ;-)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=15+meter+in+feet&btnG=Google+Search
--
mph
Kamilche
and you, both. :-)
Jack Diederich
Right, so that is about three and a half stone?
Peter Hansen
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:36:42PM -0500, rbt wrote:
>
You're probably** thinking of rods, as a stone is a measure of weight.
http://www.google.com/search?q=convert+15+meters+to+rods
--
** More likely you're just pulling our legs. :-)
Peter Hansen
Google can do that too, of course. <wink>
http://www.google.com/search?q=convert+15+meters+to+feet
(49.2125984 feet to be more precise)
-Peter
Rocco Moretti
Stone is a measure of weight, not distance. (14 pounds, ~6.35 kg)
15 meters (150 decimeter, 1500 cm, etc ...)
590 inches
49 feet
16 yards
0.0093 miles
0.008 nautical miles
3 rods
0.075 furlongs
1800 barleycorns
147.63 hands
66 spans
33 cubits
13 ells
8.2 fathoms
75 links
0.75 chains
0.0027 leauges
0.03 li
0.081 stadia
4.8e-16 parsecs
1e-10 astronomical units
5e-8 lightseconds
2.8e11 Bohr radiuses
9.2e35 Plank lenghts
and probably most appropriately (being dutch):
1.5 roede
In other words "a stone's throw away".
Gerard Flanagan
> Jack Diederich wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 01:36:42PM -0500, rbt wrote:
> >
> >>Alex Martelli wrote:
> >>
> >>>I don't think there was any official announcement, but it's true -- he
> >>>sits about 15 meters away from me;-).
> >>
> >>For Americans: 15 meters is roughly 50 feet.
> >
> >
> > Right, so that is about three and a half stone?
> Stone is a measure of weight, not distance. (14 pounds, ~6.35 kg)
No, _meters_ are a measure of weight.
15 meters (150 decimeter, 1500 cm, etc ...)
590 inches
49 feet
147.63 hands
900.7 fingers
1150.64 toes
~3.5 stone
qed
geddit?
Dave Hansen
<roccom...@hotpop.com> wrote:
[...]
You forgot
8.81419673 smoots
Regards,
-=Dave
--
Change is inevitable, progress is not.
Bengt Richter
Actually that looks like it's based on the approximation
of 25.4 mm/inch, whereas I believe the legally defined US conversion
is 39.3700 inches/meter. They're close. British is 39.3701 for some reason.
At least according to my dusty 37th Edition Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (c) 1955.
Maybe things have changed since then ;-)
>>> 15e3/25.4/12
49.212598425196852
Appears to be the google number
But the official conversion
>>> 1000/39.37
25.400050800101603
is not _exactly_ 25.4 mm/inch
so the distance from Martellibot to BDFL should
more exactly be
>>> 15*39.37/12
49.212499999999999
Send bug report to google ;-)
Regards,
Bengt Richter
nnor...@gmail.com
>
> By the way, I hear that you've become collegues also with Matt Austern,
> formerly of Apple, and Danny Thorpe, formerly of Borland. I guess we
> mere mortals don't stand a chance of being hired, but if the trend
> continues there are going to be a lot of very interesting positions
> opening everywhere else :-)
Ha! I'm still trying to figure out who let me in. Everyone has some
chance.
Of course, I'm going on vacation next week and there was talk
about a one-way ticket to Mexico.
The real question is will they let me *back* in? :-)
n
Greg Stein
software. While we've released some stuff
(code.google.com/projects.html), there is a LOT more that we want to
do. Getting engineers' 20% time to do that has been difficult.
Thankfully, we know how to fix that and got the okay/headcount to make
it happen. (IOW, it isn't a lack of desire, but making it happen)
But even if we haven't been able to open-source as much code as we'd
like, we *have* been trying to be very supportive of the community.
Between the Summer of Code and direct cash contributions, we've
provided a LOT of support to a large number of open source
organizations.
And we have a couple other ideas on how to help the open source
community. We're working on it!
Cheers,
-g
Jim Benson
> >>
> >> For Americans: 15 meters is roughly 50 feet.
> >
> >Google can do that too, of course. <wink>
> >
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=convert+15+meters+to+feet
> >
> >(49.2125984 feet to be more precise)
> >
> Actually that looks like it's based on the approximation
> of 25.4 mm/inch, whereas I believe the legally defined US conversion
> is 39.3700 inches/meter. They're close. British is 39.3701 for some reason.
> At least according to my dusty 37th Edition Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (c) 1955.
> Maybe things have changed since then ;-)
>
Actually they did change...My 54th edition lists the change that
as of July 1 1959, by definition, 1 inch is exactly 25.4 mm.
Jim
Peter Hansen
[roughly "an inch is not exactly 25.4mm"]
> At least according to my dusty 37th Edition Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (c) 1955.
> Maybe things have changed since then ;-)
Wikipedia concurs with Jim, though it says the official change dates
from 1958.
Better throw that old book out, as it's also likely to be missing any
reference to useful elements such as Lawrencium (1961), and Hassium
(1984), not to mention Ununnilium, Ununumium and Ununbium (94, 94, 96
respectively) or the most recently discovered element, which the PSU
tried to supp
Anand
I wonder if this has got to do something with Microsoft developing
IronPython. Incidentellay it is reaching a 1.0 release pretty soon.
Perhaps Google has some cards up their sleeve. What other best way to
counter this than to hire the big fish himself ? :-)
-Anand
Ilias Lazaridis
> Yeah... we recognize that we could certainly open-source more of our
> software. While we've released some stuff
> (code.google.com/projects.html), there is a LOT more that we want to
http://code.google.com/projects.html
> do. Getting engineers' 20% time to do that has been difficult.
> Thankfully, we know how to fix that and got the okay/headcount to make
> it happen. (IOW, it isn't a lack of desire, but making it happen)
When a company like Google open's sources, this means simply nothing
more than:
- the software is not critical to their business (e.g. core-software)
- the internal resources cannot ensure further development
See IBM, SUN and others, which have done the same thing.
> But even if we haven't been able to open-source as much code as we'd
> like, we *have* been trying to be very supportive of the community.
> Between the Summer of Code and direct cash contributions, we've
> provided a LOT of support to a large number of open source
> organizations.
I hope that you invest some time to _organize_ the Open Source Projects.
Starting with Python and it's project-structure (e.g. build-process) and
documentation (e.g. ensuring standard-terminology is kept, like "class")
e.g.: where can I find an UML diagramm of the Python Object Model?
Even Ruby has one:
http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png
-
> And we have a couple other ideas on how to help the open source
> community. We're working on it!
The open-source-community can help Google, too!
E.g.: Google needs an public Issue-Tracking-System.
I needed around 30 emails and 2 months until google-groups-support
removed a bug which broke(!) existent links to google archives. (cannot
find the topic. Simply search your support-archives to see the desaster).
With publicity, the team would have removed the bug within one week.
> Cheers,
> -g
And finally:
If Mr. van Rossum is now at Google, and Python is essentially a Mr. van
Rossum based product, then most possibly the evolution-speed of Python
will decrease even more (Google will implement things needed by Google -
van Rossum will follow, so simple).
I mean, when will this language finally become a _really_ fully
Object-Oriented one, with a clean reflective Meta-Model?
Thus I can see Python pass this this _simple_ evaluation (which it does
not pass in its current implementation):
http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/python.html
-
I have around one year to await.
Will see.
.
bon...@gmail.com
of either organisations of such size ?
Alex Martelli
Interesting question. I would expect, without any inside knowledge,
that Java, for example, is pretty high "in the priority of an
organization" (guess which one?) whose size (number of employees) is, I
believe, quite a bit larger than Google's. Microsoft used to have a
"particular programming language" (Visual Basic) in quite a strategic
role in their array of products, and although you'd now have to consider
a small set instead (including C#) it seems to me they still do. As for
Google, well, I believe there is exactly one (1) person you'll find
identified on the web as both a "Google Fellow" AND a Google
vice-president, and his page from when he was a professor at UCSB
(before he joined Google) is still on the web, too: guess what field his
research was in...? But I guess this is about programming languages in
general, rather than "a particular one" (and indeed, neither MS, nor
Google, nor the other organization above mentioned, have ever been
"single-programming-language" cultures [net of the very early times when
Basic was MS's only product, of course;-)]...).
Alex
bon...@gmail.com
to and if its context or meaning have been read otherwise(intended or
not intended), there isn't much I can do.
Gary Herron
You don't appear to understand Open Source very well.
Python is the way it is because we, the community, *like* it that way.
It evolves in directions that we (all) decide it is to evolve. Guido is
our leader in this because we trust him and *choose* to follow his lead.
If you want something changed you don't wait and you don't whine, you
join the community with a reasoned argument for why your idea would make
it a better language in *our* eyes.
So how about it... What's your complaint, what's your solution, and why
should we listen?
Gary Herron
bon...@gmail.com
Gary Herron wrote:
> You don't appear to understand Open Source very well.
>
> Python is the way it is because we, the community, *like* it that way.
> It evolves in directions that we (all) decide it is to evolve. Guido is
> our leader in this because we trust him and *choose* to follow his lead.
> If you want something changed you don't wait and you don't whine, you
> join the community with a reasoned argument for why your idea would make
> it a better language in *our* eyes.
>
> So how about it... What's your complaint, what's your solution, and why
> should we listen?
>
that is "Open source" in general. Another way is that if someone(or
group) don't like the current state of a project, they fork. I don't
know if that is possible in the context of python, and programming
language in general. Can it still be called python ?
I am not saying that it is a better way(my guess is not) but just that
the first sentence seems to be overly generalized.
Alex Martelli
...
> > > > I wonder if this has got to do something with Microsoft developing
> > > > IronPython. Incidentellay it is reaching a 1.0 release pretty soon.
> > > > Perhaps Google has some cards up their sleeve. What other best way to
> > > > counter this than to hire the big fish himself ? :-)
> > > I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
> > > of either organisations of such size ?
> > Interesting question. I would expect, without any inside knowledge,
> > "single-programming-language" cultures [net of the very early times when
> > Basic was MS's only product, of course;-)]...).
> >
> The question was specifically to the previous question it is responsed
> to and if its context or meaning have been read otherwise(intended or
> not intended), there isn't much I can do.
The funny idea that Google would hire Guido to "counter" Microsoft's
hiring of Jim Hugunin 1+ year ago didn't particularly need debunking,
but you chose to comment on it with a "question" which I thought was
worth answering, since you chose to phrase it so very generally, and
since it appeared to be intended as a "rhetorical question" hinting at
what I consider a wrong idea in the general case. Far from "there not
being much you can do", if you're interested in avoiding possible
misunderstandings you can easily choose to express yourself more
precisely and specifically, rather than vaguely and generically...
Alex
Bengt Richter
I had been using 25.4mm/inch myself, but decided to look it up, and
found that I had been using the "wrong" value -- now actually proving
to be right after all, after the definition change of 1958(1959?).
Google found an NIST page:
http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/appenB.html
Where it says:
"""
B.6 U.S. survey foot and mile
The U. S. Metric Law of 1866 gave the relationship 1 m = 39.37 in (in is
the unit symbol for the inch). From 1893 until 1959, the yard was defined
as being exactly equal to (3600/3937) m, and thus the foot was defined as
being exactly equal to (1200/3937) m.
In 1959 the definition of the yard was changed to bring the U.S. yard and
the yard used in other countries into agreement. Since then the yard has
been defined as exactly equal to 0.9144 m, and thus the foot has been
defined as exactly equal to 0.3048 m. At the same time it was decided that
any data expressed in feet derived from geodetic surveys within the United
States would continue to bear the relationship as defined in 1893, namely,
1 ft = (1200/ 3937) m (ft is the unit symbol for the foot). The name of
this foot is "U.S. survey foot," while the name of the new foot defined in
1959 is "international foot." The two are related to each other through
the expression 1 international foot = 0.999 998 U.S. survey foot exactly.
In Sec. B.8 and Sec. B.9, the factors given are based on the international
foot unless otherwise indicated. Users of this /Guide/ may also find
the following summary of exact relationships helpful, where for
convenience the symbols /ft/ and /mi,/ that is, ft and mi in
italic type, indicate that it is the /U.S. survey foot/ or /U.S.
survey mile/ that is meant rather than the international foot (ft) or
international mile (mi), and where rd is the unit symbol for the rod and
fur is the unit symbol for the furlong.
1 /ft/ = (1200/3937) m
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 ft = 0.999 998 /ft/
1 rd, pole, or perch = 16 1/2 /ft/
40 rd = 1 fur = 660 /ft/
8 fur = 1 U.S. survey mile (also called "statute mile") = 1 /mi/ = 5280 /ft/
1 fathom = 6 /ft/
1 international mile = 1 mi = 5280 ft
272 1/4 /ft/**2 = 1 rd**2
160 rd**2 = 1 acre = 43 560ft**2
640 acre = 1 /mi/**2
"""
(I changed italics to be indicated by /italic/ slashes, and superscript by **,
as well as changing special characters for a quarter and half to 1/4 and 1/2.
Hope I didn't typo ;-)
Anyway, 25.4 mm/inch it is. Nice to revert to that, after an unsettling diversion ;-)
NIST ought to have it right, right? Or is there an intelligent design version now? ;-/
Regards,
Bengt Richter
bon...@gmail.com
how you can read it as "rhetorical question"(could be just that it is
from me), there really is nothing I can do other changing the mail name
which I am intended to.
What is your meaning of "wrong idea in the general case" ?
Alex Martelli
...
> > > > > I wonder how high a particular programming language is in the prioirty
> > > > > of either organisations of such size ?
...
> which I am intended to.
Sorry, can't parse this (I doubt it's English).
> What is your meaning of "wrong idea in the general case" ?
In the general case, it's pretty general;-). In the specific case of
your "question" above quoted (interpreting the mis-spelled words and
grammatical errors to the best of my modest ability), reading it as
rhetorical means it's in fact intended as a statement (that a particular
programming language cannot have high priority for organizations of size
similar to MS's and Google's), and such a statement is incorrect (as I
tried showing with several examples displaying "particular programming
languages" having high strategical priorities for organizations with
many thousands of employees, including one with more personnel [larger
size] than Google's).
An example of rhetorical question:
"Do you really think that a specific technology [including a software
one, such as a programming language] cannot have, in certain cases,
*extremely high* strategic priority for organizations with thousands of
employees?"
In this example, the question is phrased to hint at how silly such an
opinion would be, and therefore imply that you can't really think that
(and must have ulterior motives for so suggesting, etc etc). Rhetorical
questions are a perfectly legitimate style of writing (although, like
all stylistic embellishments, they can be overused, and can be made much
less effective if murkily or fuzzily phrased), of course.
Alex
Steve Holden
Bengt Richter
So I found, which makes me happy, because I had been assuming 25.4
for a long time. (I'm not happy about saying "I believe the legally
defined conversion..." since I had only just tried to verify 25.4
and found that I was "wrong." I guess something told me to hedge with that "maybe" ;-)
FWIW, my first reference was my trusty old Random House American College Dictionary
(that I used in high school) dictionary, which also says 39.37 in/meter.
But it's copyrighted 1949. They used to make real reference books with good paper ;-)
Regards,
Bengt Richter
EP
I do not know how badly Google needs a particular programming language
Python, but in that I believe the IT world at large could really use
Python, more Python, both as it exists and as it might evolve to be, I
would like to mention that Python, the language, could really use a high
profile industry champion.
Java => Sun
.Net => Microsoft
C# => Microsoft
Linux => too many big name IT companies to mention
Python => ________ ?
These kind of alliances may not improve the bytecode, but they sure
influence what programmers get to use day in and day out.
Congrats, Guido. Thanks for Python and may your future at Google be bright.
EP
bon...@gmail.com
Alex Martelli wrote:
> In the general case, it's pretty general;-). In the specific case of
> your "question" above quoted (interpreting the mis-spelled words and
> grammatical errors to the best of my modest ability), reading it as
> rhetorical means it's in fact intended as a statement (that a particular
> programming language cannot have high priority for organizations of size
> similar to MS's and Google's), and such a statement is incorrect (as I
> tried showing with several examples displaying "particular programming
> languages" having high strategical priorities for organizations with
> many thousands of employees, including one with more personnel [larger
> size] than Google's).
words, if python is in a stand still as it is now, what would be the
impact to Google ? As an outsider, I can only base on public info, like
a press release mentioning Guido has been hired.
>
> An example of rhetorical question:
> "Do you really think that a specific technology [including a software
> one, such as a programming language] cannot have, in certain cases,
> *extremely high* strategic priority for organizations with thousands of
> employees?"
>
> In this example, the question is phrased to hint at how silly such an
> opinion would be, and therefore imply that you can't really think that
> (and must have ulterior motives for so suggesting, etc etc). Rhetorical
> questions are a perfectly legitimate style of writing (although, like
> all stylistic embellishments, they can be overused, and can be made much
> less effective if murkily or fuzzily phrased), of course.
Surprisingly, I don't see this as an rhetorical question at all. It is
quite netural to me as a "I don't agree with you" without indication of
silliness, just a style of writing.
