rhodri at wildebst.demon.co.uk
Fri Sep 25 00:13:27 CEST 2009
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:39:57 +0100, andrew cooke <andrew at acooke.org> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 5:20 am, Steven D'Aprano
> <ste... at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> Speaking as a user (although not of Andrew's domain specific language),
>> I'd like to say to developers PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't try to "help
>> with half-baked unreliable solutions that only work sometimes.
>> There's few things worse than unreliable tools that break just when
>> you've come to rely on them.
> The reason I asked for "unreliable half-baked" solutions is that I am
> exploring what might be possible and, in my experience, this group
> prefers to lecture me on what they think I should do rather than
> answer the damn question. I was hoping that by explicitly saying that
> reliability is not important, people might feel more free to give
> "wild" ideas that I could learn from and improve on.
> It's significant, depressing, and not at all surprising that every
> person who replied to this thread told me, in one way or another, that
> was I was asking was wrong or impossible or foolhardy.
I did apologise. I'm now going to recant, because (a) you're being
an arse, and (b) I agree 100% with Steven here. If a tool is going to
break on my when I need it (i.e. in the complicated cases), I don't
bother using that tool again.
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses
More information about the Python-list