<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Chris Angelico <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rosuav@gmail.com" target="_blank">rosuav@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:33 PM, anatoly techtonik <<a href="mailto:techtonik@gmail.com">techtonik@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Author is me, so you can ask directly. Why I didn't propose to redesign?<br>
> Because people will assume that somebody will need to write PEP and will<br>
> force me to write one. I don't believe in "redesign by specification" like<br>
> current PEP process assumes and people accuse me of being lazy and trolling<br>
> them, because I don't want to write the PEPs. Damn, I believe in iterative<br>
> development and evolution, and I failed to persuade coredevs that practices<br>
> digged up by people under the "agile" label is not some sort of corporate<br>
> bullshit. So it is not my problem now. I did all I am capable of.<br>
<br>
</span>Why, exactly, is it that you don't want to author a PEP? Is it because<br>
you don't have the time to devote to chairing the discussion and all?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Don't have time and limited energy for such discussions. Switching to<br></div><div>discussion requires unloading all other information, remembering the<br></div><div>last point, tracking what people think. If you switch to discussion few<br></div><div>days later (because you don't have time) it needs more time to refresh<br></div><div>the data about the state. This is highly inefficient. Expanding on that<br></div><div>below..<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
If so, you could quite possibly persuade someone else to. I'd be<br>
willing to take on the job; convince me that your core idea is worth<br>
pursuing (and make clear to me precisely what your core idea is), and<br>
I could do the grunt-work of writing. But you say that you "don't<br>
*believe in*" the process, which suggests a more philosophical<br>
objection. What's the issue, here? Why are you holding back from such<br>
a plan? *cue the troll music*<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't believe in the process, right. I need data. How many people<br></div><div>actually read the PEPs through the end? How many say that they fully<br>support the PEP decision? How many people read the diffs after they've<br>read the PEP and can validate that none of their previous usage cases<br></div><div>were broken? I assume that None. That's my belief, but I'd be happy to<br></div><div>see that data that proves me wrong.<br></div><div><br>I also don't believe in the PEP process, because I can't even validate my<br>own usage cases using the layout of information proposed by the PEP.<br></div><div>PEP is a compression and optimization of the various usage cases<br></div><div>expressed in verbal form that is easy to implement, but not easy to<br>understand or argue about decisions. Especially about ones that seem<br></div><div>not-well-thought, because of the flawed process above.<br><br></div><div>I also have problems with reading specifications without diagrams and<br>with drawing concepts on a virtual canvas in my head. I also find that<br>some stuff in PEP is confusing, but there is no channel like StackOverflow<br>to ask question about design decisions. Maybe I am just a poor reader,<br>but that is the reality. I'd prefer cookbook to PEP approach.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
There are many Pythons in the world. You can't just hack on CPython<br>
and expect everything to follow on from there. Someone has to explain<br>
to the Jython folks what they'll have to do to be compatible. Someone<br>
has to write something up so MicroPython can run the same code that<br>
CPython does. Someone, somewhere, has to be able to ensure that<br>
Brython users aren't caught out by your proposed change. PEPs provide<br>
that. (They also provide useful pointers for the "What's New" lists,<br>
eg PEP 441.)<br>
<br>
So, are you proposing a change to Python? Then propose it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The concept of "proposal" is completely fine. But the form is dated and<br></div><div>ineffective. And I can't deal with people who are afraid of new concepts<br>and can't see a rationale behind the buzzwords like agile, story, roadmap,<br>user experience. These are all the de-facto tools of the new generation,<br></div><div>and if somebody prefers to ride the steam engine, I don't mind, but me<br></div><div>personally don't have the lifetime to move so slow.<br></div></div></div></div>