Bloody FAQ (Was: [Python-Dev] itertools.chunks(iterable, size, fill=None))
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> wrote:
anatoly techtonik, 05.07.2012 15:36:
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
From Raymond's first message on http://bugs.python.org/issue6021 , add grouper:
"This has been rejected before.
I quite often see such arguments and I can't stand to repeat that these are not arguments. It is good to know, but when people use that as a reason to close tickets - that's just disgusting.
The *real* problem is that people keep bringing up topics (and even spell them out in the bug tracker) without searching for existing discussions and/or tickets first. That's why those who do such a search (or who know what they are talking about anyway) close these tickets with the remark "this has been rejected before", instead of repeating an entire heap of arguments all over again to feed a discussion that would only lead to the same result as it did before, often several times before.
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire. No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low. Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data). Wheew. :-F
On 7/5/2012 3:41 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
Make the bloody FAQ and summarize this stuff? Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki. What should happen to people to start extracting gems of knowledge from piles of dusty sheets called list "archives" for others to admire.
No, it is easier to say "it was already discussed many times", "why don't you Google yourself", "so far you're only complaining", etc. If people can't find anything - why everybody thinks they are ignorant and lazy. Even if it so, why nobody thinks that maybe that bloody Xapian index is dead again for a bloody amount of moons nobody knows why and how many exactly? Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing? Make it easy and the patches will follow. Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again. An "organic" way to keep traffic low.
Miscommunication is a bad experience for users, bad experience for developers, everybody is annoyed and as a result such nice language as Python loses points on TIOBE (and convenient chunk() functions to munch-munch on the sequence data). Anatoly, miscommunication is a bad experience, yes. This is an excellent example of it. I honestly have no idea what you are advocating in this message, partly because sarcasm doesn't work well. You seem really upset, but I for one don't know what it is you want.
--Ned.
Wheew. :-F _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
On Jul 6, 5:41 am, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why nobody thinks that lazy coders can also help with development? Maybe that laziness is the primary reason some major groups actually prefer Python to Java, C++ and other more interesting languages (such as PHP) when it comes to typing?
You make this criticism fairly regularly and yet you yourself constantly make suggestions and refuse to provide implementations. I have a hard time reconciling the implicit anger in this statement:
Why waste each others time? If people don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over - there is a bloody wiki.
...with ones you have previously made defending your _own_ unwillingness to examine pre-existing discussion:
It's too boring to live in a world of existing knowledge and expertise
You yourself feel you have no responsibility in understanding a situation before demanding that it be raised for discussion. I'm not sure _what_ others could put into place that would _make_ you perform this action.
Answers like "this was discussed before" don't make it easy to understand, and leaving users rereading old 19xx archives that people don't reread themselves will likely make users bounce and never (NEVER!) come up with some proposal again.
Once again you're putting the burden on _others_ to somehow come up with mechanisms to force people to do the due diligence they should be capable of doing as a programmer. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that if someone cannot be bothered putting the effort into understanding the pre-existing content for a proposal they're making, then yes, they simply should not come up with that proposal. I'm not entirely sure why you feel people should be entitled to request far more than they're willing to contribute.
participants (3)
-
alex23 -
anatoly techtonik -
Ned Batchelder