Conceptual flaw in pxdom?

Diez B. Roggisch deets at nospam.web.de
Wed May 20 11:25:36 CEST 2009


Paul Boddie wrote:

> On 19 Mai, 18:16, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de... at nospam.web.de> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to say so, but that's nonsense. DOM is not complicated because it
>> contains anything superior - the reason (if any) is that it is formulated
>> as language-agnostic as possible, with the unfortunate result it is
>> rather clumsy to use in all languages.
> 
> Although I presume that people really mean the core standards when
> they talk about "the DOM", not all the other ones related to those
> core standards, the API is not to everyone's taste because, amongst
> other things, it uses functions and methods when some people would
> rather use properties (which actually appear in various places in the
> standards, so it isn't as if the W3C haven't heard of such things),
> and for lots of other subjective reasons: some I can agree with, some
> I put at the same level as a lot of the API-posturing in numerous
> domains where Python code gets written, where such code jostles above
> all other concerns for the coveted "Pythonic" label.
> 
> However, when people are actually choosing to use DOM-related
> technologies, and when those technologies do not necessarily have
> equivalents in whatever other technology stack that could be
> suggested, can we not just take it as read that they actually know
> that the DOM isn't very nice (or that other people don't think that
> it's very nice) and that there are alternatives to the core stuff
> (especially when the inquirer has actually indicated his familiarity
> with those alternatives) and that reminding everyone for the nth time
> about how bad the DOM is (for whatever tangential purpose only
> partially related to the topic under discussion) adds very little if
> anything in the way of advice? It's like someone saying that they're
> going to fly the Atlantic in a 747 only to be told that they should
> drive a Lexus because "Boeing make terrible cars".
> 
> Feel free to replace "DOM" in the above with whatever else fits,
> because this kind of thing comes up all the time.

You could have wrote that same reply when the OP stated that 

"""
It [DOM] might be more
complicated, but that's probably because lots of very smart people
thought about it very carefully and it couldn't be made any simpler.
"""

Which is another way of saying "I know X, but Y is better." 

Also, not trying to convince people that there are better alternatives to
what and how they do something (admittedly, better is subjective, thus
ensues discussion), or gathering arguments on why they do believe their way
is preferable is the very essence of fora like this - if you'd really want
that to go away, we're down to answering the notorious
mutable-default-argument-question.

Diez



More information about the Python-list mailing list