re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output)
Kirby writes -
I personally don't think the primary reason for changing >the behavior of / was that it confused newbies.
Maybe you are correct. And there certainly are good arguments for the change that are not related to that fact that it was not what folks who hadn't gotten to chapter 3 of the tutorial were expecting. But I've gone this far, might as well finish my thought. The most activist advocates of the change seemed to have been folk like Bruce Sherwood who was questioning Python's, let's say, saleability for purposes like his physics class and Randy Pausch, because the behavior did not play nice with his toy. I am not making up the fact that Guido mentioned Sherwood's classroom experience prominently and at key points during the debate. And it is clear that Pausch saw it as a *big* issue and that Guido quite well heard his position. But I was and remain confused. Confused why Guido needed documentary evidence that non-programmers would be surprised by 1/2 = 0. Common sense. Not sure how much of Sherwood's and Pausch's grant money went done the tubes making that discovery. But there is reality reality and there is emotional reality. So I won't claim to be in touch with reality reality. My own emotional reality (now the guy is talking about *emotions*) is that Guido has, when it comes to issues of Python and education, been more in tune to the needs and analysis of folks who don't take Python very seriously (like them) rather than folks who do (like me). Certainly I had nor have no reason to believe that Guido, in the weighing of pros and cons, took at all seriously the possiblity that the div operator change might be *harmful* to folks looking to Python as an introduction to programming. Despite the fact that someone who had been through the experience was trying to say he thought it would - me. I can tell you that Bruce Sherwood *still* understands little about Python. And Randy Pausch's true interest in Python and education is well indicated, in my mind, but the level of his participation on this list. And with that, hopefully I will find myself able to go silent on the issue of "/". Copy of course being a whole other story. Art
Certainly I had nor have no reason to believe that Guido, in the weighing of pros and cons, took at all seriously the possiblity that the div operator change might be *harmful* to folks looking to Python as an introduction to programming.
If we take this argument seriously, perhaps Python would become a better language if we crippled it some more. Let's limit the maximum size of lists to 32767, and the maximum size of dicts to 32768. Let's make multiplication undefined when the result is larger than 2**33. Let's truncate all identifiers to 6 characters. Let's make keywords (but not identifiers) case-insensitive. Let the program die with a core dump upon division by zero. Seriously, Art, it sounds like you struggled with a problem and are proud that you overcame it, and now you want others to have the same experience. I'll tell you what. The school of hard knocks sucks. There are plenty of *interesting* problems in programming to break your head on, there's no need to surrect artificial barriers. Save some brain cells to think about an efficient sorting algorithm or a generational garbage collector (never mind that Python comes with these built-in as well).
Despite the fact that someone who had been through the experience was trying to say he thought it would - me. I can tell you that Bruce Sherwood *still* understands little about Python. And Randy Pausch's true interest in Python and education is well indicated, in my mind, but the level of his participation on this list.
Bullshit.
And with that, hopefully I will find myself able to go silent on the issue of "/".
I dare you.
Copy of course being a whole other story.
"I came here for an argument." "Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse." 'Nuff said. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
Seriously, Art, it sounds like you struggled with a problem and are proud that you overcame it, and now you want others to have the same experience.
Actually I haven't overcome it. I understand barely enough about numeric typing to get by for what I do. I am still lost in most of the conversations about the intricacies.
I'll tell you what. The school of hard knocks sucks. There are plenty of *interesting* problems in programming to break your head on, there's no need to surrect artificial barriers. Save some brain cells to think about an efficient sorting algorithm or a generational garbage collector (never mind that Python comes with these built-in as well).
Well we do have a difference of perspective I think. Seems to me anybody in the least bit serious about learning to program getting "stuck" on 1/2 = 0 isn't going too far beyond that anyway. Maybe I am missing your point. To me this isn't a *problem* of programming, it is just programming.
Despite the fact that someone who had been through the experience was trying to say he thought it would - me. I can tell you that Bruce Sherwood *still* understands little about Python. And Randy Pausch's true interest in Python and education is well indicated, in my mind, but the level of his participation on this list.
Bullshit.
Can you say more? Does Bruce Sherwood know much about Python? Was he even a qualified newbie when he look up the mantle of an "expert" on how Python should be configured Seems to me that all experiemnts need a control. Even if doing an "experiment" in one's head, one needs to understand the implications of the control group side. No Sherwood did and does *not* understand Python well enough to be in a position to open his mouth in an informed way on anything connected to Python. Though he does leave the field open for folks like me to get vocal. I promise you I can Python the guy under the table. I have said enough of what I think I about Randy Pausch's project. Probably that is where our violent disagrement lies. The fact that I see nothing "technical" in the issues involved in our different takes, and am willing to contend with you as an equal on the subject, seems to make you a bit meshuga.
And with that, hopefully I will find myself able to go silent on the issue of "/".
I dare you.
Got me.
Copy of course being a whole other story.
"I came here for an argument."
"Oh, I'm sorry, this is abuse."
'Nuff said.
I think you notoriously do not take disagreement well. I phrased and have been trying to phrase things as carefully as I can to try *not* to sound abusive - while at the same time allowing myself to express my thoughts clearly on issues relevant to the subject line of this list Recently, at least, I have *absolutely nothing* to apologize for. Art
Arthur wrote:
No Sherwood did and does *not* understand Python well enough to be in a position to open his mouth in an informed way on anything connected to Python. Though he does leave the field open for folks like me to get vocal. I promise you I can Python the guy under the table.
Arthur, you are provoking other people with your disgusting statements all the time. In my opinion you are an embarrassment for the otherwise in general very friendly and polite Python community.
I think you notoriously do not take disagreement well.
I think Guido is very open for other opinions. Write a PEP and make your point clear. Then things can be discussed and enhanced on a common ground. But you always talk importantly about things you don't really understand very deeply. I fact, you can not even write an example of your thoughts using Python. You are just poisoning the whole atmosphere.
I phrased and have been trying to phrase things as carefully as I can to try *not* to sound abusive
bla, bla. I wonder who agrees with you on that point. Personally I get too upset reading your postings so I just added a filter to my email reader which deletes all emailes stemming from your address. trying-to-stay-out-of-this-conversation-as-long-as-I-could'ly yrs Markus
Perhaps I do take all this *much* too seriously. But, I keep thinking that's what we are here for Bruce Sherwood actually criticized Python's old div operator behavior in the scant documentation to VPython. Some editing of that documentation - I am stating facts as I understand them - was the bulk of his contribution to the substance of the project. Does criticism of the language in which you freely chose to implement something, rightly belong in the documentation of that something Incredibly, I perceive myself as being defensive on behalf of Python. That probably sounds funny to you. I am definitely clumsy, though. No question. Art ----- Original Message ----- From: "Markus Gritsch" <gritsch@iue.tuwien.ac.at> To: "Arthur" <ajs@ix.netcom.com>; <edu-sig@python.org> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:06 AM Subject: Re: [Edu-sig] re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output)
Arthur wrote:
No Sherwood did and does *not* understand Python well enough to be in a position to open his mouth in an informed way on anything connected to Python. Though he does leave the field open for folks like me to get
vocal.
I promise you I can Python the guy under the table.
Arthur, you are provoking other people with your disgusting statements all the time. In my opinion you are an embarrassment for the otherwise in general very friendly and polite Python community.
I think you notoriously do not take disagreement well.
I think Guido is very open for other opinions. Write a PEP and make your point clear. Then things can be discussed and enhanced on a common ground. But you always talk importantly about things you don't really understand very deeply. I fact, you can not even write an example of your thoughts using Python.
You are just poisoning the whole atmosphere.
I phrased and have been trying to phrase things as carefully as I can to try *not* to sound abusive
bla, bla. I wonder who agrees with you on that point.
Personally I get too upset reading your postings so I just added a filter to my email reader which deletes all emailes stemming from your address.
trying-to-stay-out-of-this-conversation-as-long-as-I-could'ly yrs Markus
Indeed, Art, I'm sick and tired of you. You did not respond to my explanation of the division change using the substitutibility rule. It's a technical issue, whether or not you understand it. As to whether Sherwood and Pausch understand Python or not, I'm not particularly interested in a repetition of "is not" / "is too" ad infinitum. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
participants (3)
-
Arthur -
Guido van Rossum -
Markus Gritsch