Deposing Dictators

[Tim Peters]

[Arthur Siegel]
> ...
> It is the Alice project that confirmed the significance of case
> sensitivity to Guido.

"confirmed" doesn't seem accurate.  AFAICT, the reports from the Alice
project spurred Guido to think hard about it for the first time.  They
clearly struck a sympathetic chord.

> I and others tried to convince Guido that those findings were flawed
> to  such an extent where they could be safely ignored. Tim Peters,
> if I am not mistaken, publicly weighed in on it- "flawed".

Yes, I thought the Alice case conclusions were easily explained by the
InconsistentCamelcasingUsedThroughOuttheirApi.

> Deaf ears.

c.l.py has seen far too much of "if Guido doesn't agree with me, it must be
that he ignored me" silliness in recent years; I trust this isn't another
instance of it.  In this particular case, I believe Guido saw more worth in
Alice's position than was explicit in their arguments.

> Then VPython comes along - also out of Carnegie Mellon.

Does it matter where it's from?

> Guido  states that VPython "failed to confirm" Alice's findings about
> the significance of case sensitivity.  I note Guido's wording. In
> better words, "contradicted" those findings. No surprise.

The VPython project made no claim that their users did *better* with
case-sensitivity than with case-insensitivity.  THey didn't try to contrast
them.  What they reported is that case-sensitivity wasn't a problem for
their users, which says nothing at all about case-insensitivity; "failed to
confirm" is the more accurate phrasing.

> Stating it as diplomatically as I can, the argument that anything
> of significance could be generalized from Alice's findings was,
> is, and has been flawed.

I personally haven't heard Guido make that argument in ... what ... a few
years?  I believe he still agrees with their conclusions.  Indeed, most
people who come to a correct conclusion do so for *some* suspect reasons
<0.1 wink>.

> Rather than going back to the drawing board and questioning
> himself about where he is looking for evidence, and how
> he is evaluating it - Guido now takes VPython's findings
> about the "/" operator (and its "confirmation" of Alice's
> "findings") as the new testament.

Guido isn't obsessed with Carnegie Mellon.  We have years of reports from
many Python users about the real-life consequences of division semantics,
and VPython is notable primarily because they cared so much they forked
Python to change it.  Should Guido ignore that?  Of course not.

> Or at least seems to expect us to be satisfied with it.

He's given his arguments repeatedly in the division threads; I don't believe
he even mentioned VPython in the last few repetitions; the PEP 238 Rationale
doesn't mention VPython either.

> I happen to remained convinced that any conclusions drawn
> from the VPython reports are simplistically linear as to
> its implications for the inexperienced programmer working
> in the numerical realm within the overall framework of Python.

Please read the PEP 238 Rationale:

    http://python.sourceforge.net/peps/pep-0238.html

It doesn't mention Alice, VPython, newbies or CP4E.  The PEP (but not the
Rationale) does mention VPython once near the bottom, but if that's all you
can see I'm not sure it's Guido's deaf ears we should be concerned about
<wink>.

language-design-isn't-a-deductive-science-and-guido-isn't-even-
    a-debate-judge-ly y'rs  - tim