Python evolution: Unease
nytimes at swiftdsl.com.au
Wed Jan 5 07:16:20 EST 2005
> 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?
I'm not sure which planet you come from but open source is open source
for a reason. IMO gratitude is the only thing which can be given back to
the contributors of open source projects not "what you've given me for
FREE is not good enough, go back and do a better job (and by the way I
don't really know how you can do a better job) so I can make money off
your free time". I don't even expect this much from software I pay for.
Being a python user (not contributer) for the past few years I
personally think the Python docs are GREAT. If it's not in the
reference, it can be found in the source (again thank god for open
source), if it's not in the source you have google, then google groups
then ASPN python cookbook. If you're not smart enough to do this, well
learn. It'll help you become a better programmer.
Anyone who thinks Python docs suck haven't browsed javadocs lately, or MSDN.
> 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.
You should be more accurate. Quote "Python is good software, but its
advocates are making claims that [you think it] doesnt live up to". I
guess everyone is allowed to have their own opinion.
> And no, I don't feel a responsibility to do the missing work, since
> I'm not the one making those advocacy claims.
Good on ya.
More information about the Python-list