[Python-Dev] Trial balloon: microthreads library in stdlib

[Jean-Paul Calderone]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:20:13 +1300, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>

Greg, productive discussion is not furthered by the
unsupported statement of one position or another.

Instead of only stating what you believe to be a problem,
explain why you believe it is a problem.  A sentence like:

>
>The need for different event-driven mechanisms to compete
>with each other is the very problem that needs to be
>addressed.
>

Invites a response which merely contradicts it (for example,
"you are wrong"), an exchange which hasn't helped anyone to
understand anything better.  If you present supporting evidence
for the position, then the validity and the weight of that
evidence can be discussed, and one position or another might
be shown to have greater validity.

Also, show that you have fully understood the position you are
arguing against.  For example, if you respond to a message in
which someone claims to welcome something, don't respond by
saying that requiring that thing is bad.  As you know, welcoming
something is not the same as requiring that thing, so by making
this statement alone, you give the impression of talking past the
person to whom you are responding and it may seem to readers that
you haven't understood the other person's position.

>If Twisted is designed so that it absolutely *has* to
>use its own special event mechanism, and everything else
>needs to be modified to suit its requirements, then it's
>part of the problem, not part of the solution.
>

Here, you've built on your unsupported premise to arrive at
a conclusion which may be controversial.  Again, instead of
couching the debate in terms of what you might see as self
evidence problems, explain why you hold the position you do.
That way, the possibility is created for other people to come
to understand why you believe the conclusion to be valid.

You have presented what could be the beginning of supporting
evidence here, in saying that requiring "everything else" to
be modified is undesirable.  This is only a place to start,
not to end, though.  You may want to discuss the real scope
of modifications required (because "everything" is obviously
hyperbole, focusing on what changes are actually necessary
would be beneficial) and why you think that modifications are
necessary (it may not be clear to others why they are, or it
may be the case that others can correct misconceptions you
have).

For example, you might give a case in which you have needed to
integrate Twisted (or a different event framework) with another
event loop and describe difficulties you discovered.  This will
help advance the discussion around practical, specific concerns.
Without this focus, it is hard for a discussion to be productive,
since it will involve only vague handwaving.

Finally, it is often beneficial to avoid bringing up phrases such
as "the problem".  Particularly in a context such as this, where
the existing discussion is focusing on a specific issue, such as
the necessity or utility of adding a new set of functionality to
the Python standard library, the relevance of "the problem" may
not be apparent to readers.  In this case, some may not find it
obvious how a third party library can be "the problem" with such
new functionality.  If you explicitly spell out the detrimental
consequences of an action, instead of waving around "the problem",
the resulting discussion can be that much more productive and
focused.

Thanks

Jean-Paul