Python evolution: Unease

[Paul Rubin]

Jeremy Bowers <jerf at jerf.org> writes:
> So, nobody should have to write the docs because they should already be
> there, but "somebody" should have to write the docs?
> 
> You need to think more clearly about the pronouns you are slinging around.
> Who is this "they" that should write the docs?

The Python advocates who claim that Python is well-documented and take
exception to when someone say it isn't.  Their idea of "it's
well-documented" seems to be "if there's parts that you think are
poorly documented, feel free to document it".  What kind of nonsense
is that?  "Python code runs just as fast as C code.  If you think it's
slower, feel free to speed it up".  "Python's standard library
includes a database module.  If it isn't there, feel free to add one".
"Programming in Python cures cancer.  If your cancer doesn't clear up
when you code in Python, feel free to submit a patch".

Software advocacy, which Python has an awful lot of, involves
extolling the virtues of a program as it exists in the present.  Not
as it could potentially exist if someone hypothetically added a bunch
of work that hasn't yet been done.  Python is good software, but its
advocates are making claims that Python itself doesnt live up to.

And no, I don't feel a responsibility to do the missing work, since
I'm not the one making those advocacy claims.