The impugning of the competence or motivation of *anyone* via a list is completely non-constructive. I think Colin Powell's response to Harry Belafonte is appropriate in this context (since it is topical at the moment).

I agree. And will forward your comment to Kirby with whom I fight about politics, as a sideline.

For those of us on the list, it is a complete distraction. We are in no position to verify or impeach your judgment on the matter. And it is meaningless (though a popular pastime) for us to vote on the subject and/or contribute to perpetuation of the soap opera.

Expressing it and having it heard, when it is felt strongly and securely, has to be part of what the list is about. Guido could have ended the conversation with me a year ago by saying anything that indicated that he actually heard me, and why he thought my point was either wrong, or overriden by point Y. He would in fact preempt my point specifically by saying that Bruce Sherwood's classroom experience proves otherwise. I can dig up the exchange if pressed. Which only indicates he was not hearing me - at all. And of course setting me off further on the Bruce Sherwood issue.

Furthermore, the elitist stance of requiring some demonstrated level of competence before being able to speak is almost completely contrary to the focus and theme of this particular list (i.e., CP4E). Really smart people say stupid things.

I made it clear why I think Bruce is fair game. Putting his criticism of Python in the documentation of an application he didn't write, then distributing it. I personally resent it particularly because I happen to love the application. VPython. Putting the weight of that wonderful code he didn't write behind his not particularly informed opinion. You wanna talk bullshit. I'm sorry - no regrets.

Someone who has not delved deeply into something can have something bright to observe. No one in this list is clueless and everyone deserves credit for being here and willing to participate. Ad hominem observations do *nothing* for honoring the spirit of inquiry or creating a welcome environment. It reduces the conversation to one of personalities and argument and nothing concrete. Think of all the newbies who are now concerned that some fellow named Art may have a public sentiment to offer about their qualifications!

I have personal reservations about Python as a language of choice. I have some concern that the compromises that have been made in the general (not specifically Pythonese) programming-language appropriation of mathematical terminology have been damaging to mathematics and its teaching, so I am not so willing to defend that situation. (Here, if it is not clear, I am disagreeing with you about 1/2=0.)

I happen to be more interested in the teaching of mathematics than I am in the teaching of programming. And think I have some interesting ideas, that have been actualized to a decent extent, to help turn the tables and make programming a good servant to that cause. Have lectured by invitation to the math faculties at a few universities on the subject. To, I think, an interested response. Though they don't know what to make of me either. I am neither a mathematician nor an educator. But in the end I am quite sure nobody felt their time was wasted. I talk quite specifically about the choice of Python as my implementation language in those presentations. The math professor who is sort of sponsoring me - having found what I had done and appreciating some of what makes it unique - was a Scheme head. Though he is happily exploring Python as of now.

At the same time I am fascinated by the Edu-sig community and what it is

up

to. I have no complaint against Python and I love what people are able to accomplish with it. I am not anti-Python. I still use it for examples in some of my work. It just doesn't satisfy my requirements for certain things, and there are pitfalls that I don't like that may, in the event, not turn out to be very significant. And my preferences don't tell me anything about Guido at all! They're my preferences and they are in response to my values and my research interests, not someone else's. Although I tend to think of them as the right preferences (it is apparently how we are wired to constantly fall into that), I find it valuable to be reminded that there is no such thing. There are my preferences, your preferences, and Guido's preferences, etc.

Along those lines, I also have strong preferences about arithmetic and value types and related topics, including copy (e.g., storage models versus reference versus value models). I find value in the discussions of actual experiences people have had with being stopped, or having difficulty being able to comprehend, explain or motivate. That is very useful. I collect those emails and articles because it is valuable to understand and to be on alert for in things I do.

The bandy-rooster stuff is usually just an invitation for the delete key.

I don't leap from the experiences people have to insisting there is something broken that should be fixed or something there that should be preserved. They are separate things. This list is not a very good place to lobby for either. I think the PEP mechanism is where that happens, and

there is what the official says. As the seasoned umpire says of pitched strikes and balls, "they aren't anything until I call them." It is clear who the umpire is here. If you want to play in this game, you get to

Feel free. You might miss something worth hearing in the morose, though. then play

by the umpire's rules. Certain moves get made and the thing to do is play it out and see how it works. Constant revisitation just paralyzes things. And mistakes are made, detected and repaired (or not), and then the next mistake is made, etc.

My experience of Guido is that he is extremely gracious and open.

That is my personal experience. Whether his last notes are an expression of irritation/impatience with things said on the list, I don't see that as evidence of him being particularly thin-skinned. But I don't think asking for evidence concerning the competence of third parties is what it is about. It is about such discussions being bullshit from the get go. I think

Am I allowed to express that I have had a different expereince, without be accused of being abusive? that's

what there is to take to heart.

And I get that you find Python very valuable and appealing and you want to see it widely known and well used. And sometimes, what there is to do is see how it goes and let experience be the teacher. Reiteration about a resolved matter simply doesn't add anything.

There is resolved and resolved. Certainly there is something quite unresolved as between Guido and myself.

For what it's worth,

-- orcmid

------------------ Dennis E. Hamilton http://NuovoDoc.com/ mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org tel. +1-206-932-6970 cell +1-206-779-9430 The Miser Project: http://miser-theory.info/ AIIM DMware: http://DMware.info/