python and java

anyone know where I can get some decent ebooks on programming with python or java? I do most of my research at work and have no internet connection.

I hope you get fired.

That depends..what's your skill level?
Python: If you're a complete beginner then 'Think Python' would be a good start, if you have some programming knowledge then 'Dive into Python'. Both available from a trivial google search

no internet connection.
I'd die

my skill level resolves around linux as an operating system. Just blacklisting unneeded kernel modules for performance, setting up linux servers, etc. etc. etc.
Just starting into programming, so I guess Think Python will be what I am looking for.

>>4
s/Python/Perl and you'll be on the Path to Enlightenment, Grasshoppah

>>3
That depends..what's your skill level?
Low enough to think Python and Java are a good idea.

>>5,6
:D
>>1
Learn some REAL-LIFE language like Haskell i mena HASKAL

>>5
Go home, Larry.

REAL-LIFE
Haskell

Insinuating that /prog/'s favorite toy language has real world systems administration applications.

Ha ha ha, oh wow. Just wow.

I'd recommend Lisp, but most administrative tasks aren't hard and perl/python may even be easier to use, just don't use them when you want to properly solve a hard problem.

>>10
lisp my ass

>>10
Numbnutts, he want to do systems programming not write applications in your Mickey Mouse Lisp/Haskell/<fuctional crap> language

implying that python or Java would be better than Lisp/Haskell for Systems programming

>>13
No implication at all my good man. Use the correct tools for the job. Python and Perl are made for such applications. Your clown crap is not.

End of story.

Goodbye, thanks for playing.

YHBT

>>14
Implying that you haven't been meta-trolled

>>15
| Implying that you haven't been meta meta trolled

>>16
I'd love to keep this going but I'm too lazy. I will concede your victory and head off somewhere to get this /jp/ shit out of my head.

Implying that you were implying something

>>17
+1 Internets for gracefully conceding another's victory. A gentleman of class, to be sure. Bravo.

>>14
Lisp had an entire commercial OS written in, and that OS had features that are still not replicated in current OSes. You have no idea what a language is capable of, since you just don't know it.

However, most of what you incorrectly call 'systems programming'(I don't remember seeing drivers written in Python or Perl, I have seen multiple cases of OSes written entirely in Lisp(with appropriate compilers). Most true systems programming these days is done in C (both for *nix and C).). Writing shell scripts or similar simple CLI applications in Perl and Python is barely systems programming. Lisp can easily do that, but it's not that often used for it, but I do agree that using Perl for just filtering some data on the command line and other simple administrative tasks is fine, as that's what the language was designed for, which means using the right tool for the job, but it's a bit sad if they were to use it for designing complex systems and just created a buggy mess.

>>20
sYMBOLICS GENERA?

>>20
There is no free lisp implementation today that approaches usable quality.  So while that's all very romantic to reminisce about, you can't seriously recommend it for new projects.

>>22
i HAVE AT LEAST ONE MIT-LICENCED IMPLEMENTATION IN MIND AND A GPL ONE, SO YOU MUST BE USING A REALLY ABSURD DEFINITION OF "FREEDOM" (OR "USABLE QUALITY"). cLARIFY THOSE TERMS.

>>21
Yea.
>>22
What? I'm using SBCL, and it works fine on most platforms. CCL works very well too, CLisp works mostly fine as well. I don't know what you mean by usability, but these implementations comply with the standard pretty well(some better than others). Not free? Public domain isn't free enough for you? LLGPL isn't free enough for you? Unless you mean the perverted kind of "freedom" that GPL provides (that would be crazy for a Lisp implementation, as it would require everyone to publish source for any applications used in an implementation if you distribute binaries).

What exactly does 'usable quality' mean to you? I find developing in Emacs+SLIME very comfortable and pleasant: it's truly interactive development, much better than how it feels when developing in other languages. Commercial Lisps are also in very good condition, but you didn't ask about them, so I won't talk about them. As for developing on the Genera, some people are still doing it, and I don't see a problem with it as long as you indend to write portable CL code. Sources to the Genera are available, and you can do as you wish, and its presentations are "true" presentations (not like the SLIME emulation of them, which is enough for development purposes). If you want a moderm LispOS-like dev environment, you might also want to look at McCLIM, but I don't have much experience with it.

>>24
Nope. Even SBCL, the best of the bunch, is mostly worthless. It can't even compile properly without hand-optimizing the program, which entails littering hundreds of thousands of type declarations all over the program. Even Haskell is better about this.

When all is said and done, Lisp is a nice parlor trick, but it's still way too immature to be used in any kind of production environment.

>>25
It depends on what your application's bottlenecks are, if you truly need to micro-optimize everything, then you might be better off using C. Are you sure your algorithm couldn't be improved to get much larger speed gains than just micro-optimizing everything (for some 2-3x speed gains - aproaching C level of speed)?

Haskell doesn't usually need type declarations as it can infer types, but of course Common Lisp being dynamically typed and having standard functions accepting a large variety of types, make strong typechecking a hard problem. It would be easier by having a constrained standard library for this kind of thing, but that would not be CL anymore.

You did not specify what kind of applications you want to write that don't have any bottlenecks and the used algos are already optimal? In practice, for most applications the speed SBCL provides is more than enough, and is usually on average a few times slower than C (and many times faster than the  implementation of languages discussed in this thread, such as Python or Perl - not talking about unladen-swallow here, as I don't know how it compares, just CPython. It's probably on par with JVM/CLR stuff on average, but with enough declarations it can achieve C levels of performance).

>>26
Lol, a Lisp weenie that actually thinks his language is good enough for non-toy applications.

>>26
YHBT

>>25
I hear that the Yahoo shop was (is?) written in Lisp, and was rather successful back in the day. Your point about Lisp being immature is invalid.

>>29

Yes, in the early and mid 90's LISP was concidered the shit.

Check your fucking calendar nigger.

>>30
Actually, lisp was the shit back in the 50s and it's still the siht, what does that tell you?

>>29
Yahoo
（　≖‿≖）

>>31
no.
java is the shit today.
your toy language can't hold a candle to it.
just ask 999/1000 PHBs.
sorry, but NOBODY cares about little lisp anymore.

>>33
Right, I don't care about lisp either, but that doesn't stop me from using it instead of other inferior languages that I don't care about equally.

>>34
Allow me to de-sarcasm this post for the lovely readers of /prog/:
Wrong. I care about lisp. I am a huge fanboy, and because of this i use it instead of other superior languages that I don't care about equally.

>>35
search up the word "sarcasm"

>>36
A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Saying something that is opposite of what is intended to be meant; An act of sarcasm
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sarcasm

You're a fanboy. Face it.
Your fanboyism clouds your judgement and makes you blind.

>>37
I wasn't being sarcastic. To say lisp is superior to some languages is realism, to say otherwise, is fanboyism. Maybe it's you who's the fanboy?

>>38
Mirror, mirror, nananana.

Lisp is the original. Truly God's language.

>>40
http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/eternal-flame.html

>>40
I want to challenge your premise - that functional languages are significantly more "in" now than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

I think there has always been an undercurrent of people discovering functional programming, falling in love, trying to make it work on a broad-scale, and managing to cut out only a niche market.

Has that really changed? What evidence would you offer?

>>42
yOU'RE A RETARD. lISP DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING.

>>42-43
Lisp
Isn't
Functional
Programming

Disclaimer

The joke on this page was obtained from the FSF's email archives of the GNU Project.

The Free Software Foundation claims no copyright on this joke.

This joke is free humor: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This joke is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this joke.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>;.

>>45
I'm totally GPLing all my trolls from now on ^_^

>>46
I actually have a Trolling public license made up

>>46,47
yOU MORONS MUST THINK YOU'RE THE SHIT

My dear >>48-chan. I don't think I am the shit I *know* I am the shit. I mean people I don't even know walk up to me everyday and tell me how highly they think of me. I'm all that and more bitches and you can't get none.

oNLY A MORON WOULD BRAG ABOUT BEING SHIT

>>50
I appreciate the effort, but after FV, I just can't be trolled anymore ;_;

>>51
TTE eq FV

<-- check em dubz