re: Types and true division (was Re: strange output
Me:
Simply, clearly, and undisputably.
Kirby:
You're talking about some remarks in the VPython docs yes?
To continue a monolgue that I agree is absolutely pointles, but at the same time can, if one chooses to see it as such, is also absolutely harmless: No, Kirby. I am referencing the fact that the original PEP spoke *only* of the newbie issue. But more importantly I am referencing the fact that Guido in the course of the discussion referenced the work of Pausch and Sherwood, quite specifically and on numerous occassions and in a way that indicated that to him it provided what amounted to a scientific basis for a conclusion that the change was necessary and important to be made on behalf of newbies. I am referencing the fact that after all the contentious debate, the announcment of the fact that it was a (near) done deal came in the form of an announcement by Guido that he was sending over a patch to Bruce Sherwood effectuating the change so that Bruce would no longer need to maintain a forked Python. Which BTW Sherwood in fact never did, to my knowledge. I am repeating the fact that in the course of the debate Guido specifically responded a post of mine by pointing to the Sherwood classroom experience as *proof* - as in science - that whatever Guido might have thought my point was, it was groundless Why clutter up the list with quotes and links. It's all there on the record. I quite believe Tim that that was not the substance of *his* discussions on the matter with Guido. So? Art
At 11:47 AM 10/11/2002 -0400, Arthur wrote:
Why clutter up the list with quotes and links. It's all there on the record.
OK, thanks for clarifying. I've not followed the literature as closely as you have. I think if newbie confusions had been the only motivation for the change, at the expense of language coherence, then it'd be as you suppose, a politically expedient maneuver that dumbed down the language but broadened its appeal to the masses. My view is the vetting process, including PEPs, whereby a whole community gets to examine proposed changes, is critical, and changes with a shaky technical basis could and should be shot down, or at least exposed as shaky, during this stage -- even were they to come from Guido. This vetting process is what the community is engaged in currently, around adding rational numbers as a new type (plus other PEPs). If the problems with div were originally connected to the problems of newbies, and if this were the *only* justification for the making the change, then I think you'd have a point. As I understand it, you wish there'd be some acknowledgement that at some point in the evolutionary trajectory, there was a time when newbie concerns seemed to weigh too heavily in the balance. You resent being portrayed as irrational merely for wanting to insist on this historical point. As I said above, I haven't followed the literature closely enough to know what the original PEP said or didn't say in detail, but were this point to be granted in some way, then you'd be satisfied. I take it you are also, for your part, willing to acknowledge that the final motivations for the change, after vetting and input from a broader community, ended up having to do with purely technical issues not of concern to newbies. So that, in fact, newbies are only happier with this change as a matter of coincidence, whereas in other cases (e.g. not including copy() as a built-in) newbie concerns are not being addressed, once again for technical reasons (i.e. technical reasons have so far carried the day in both cases).
I quite believe Tim that that was not the substance of *his* discussions on the matter with Guido.
So?
Art
I don't think it's irrelevant that technical justifications for the change do exist, irrespective of newbie concerns. The lesson to draw from this is, if you can't argue your position on technical merits, it has less chance of surviving. Just championing the "new user" is not going to carry the day when it comes to the Python community's assessment process. And yes, sometimes newbies and pros will find themselves in agreement (other times not). Kirby
participants (2)
-
Arthur -
Kirby Urner