A modest indentation proposal

[Erann Gat]

In article <mailman.1007142894.896.python-list at python.org>,
<brueckd at tbye.com> wrote:

> Do you think this indentation stuff will have any bearing at all on any
> of this? Erann, there are much bigger fish to fry. I apologize, but this
> is really a nit-pick issue. Surely the people you're trying to sell this
> to can come up with better reasons as to why Python is not suitable. I
> mean, if they are complaining about this then I am *really* curious about
> what languages they *do* find acceptable. I guarantee that, given any
> language (including Python!), we can come up with more serious and
> reasonable objections than this one.

Yes, of course it's a nit-pick issue.  These arguments are not entirely
rational (though I actually do believe this argument has some merit, not
that that matters).  These things have as much to do with fashion and
ass-covering than with technical arguments.  What languages do "they" find
acceptable?  C++.  Java is starting to make some inroads, but it's still a
hard sell.

> Congratulations on getting them this far (I'm serious). You've obviously
> done a lot of selling to them to get them to the point that these are the
> types of objections they're raising.

Thanks.

> The thing to do now is to convince
> them to let you use Python on a minor project or two so that they can
> *objectively* judge the merits of Python. You need to help them get out of
> the respond-to-whatever-problems-we-can-dream-up mode and into the
> see-what-problems-really-occur-and-how-often mode, and then you can
> accurately judge the suitability of Python.

Yes, that will help, but not nearly as much as being able to come up with
a technically sounds response to this objection.  I got NASA to fly Common
Lisp, so I've had some experience selling these people on unusual
languges.  Please believe me, I've been here before.

> Yes, in theory, their
> objection can cause problems. In practice, however, it rarely does.

Rarely isn't good enough.  The annals of catastrophic failures are
chock-full of multi-million-dollar failures that were the result of things
that "rarely" caused problems.  This argument works only for the currently
popular thing, not for the underdog, and at the moment Python is still the
underdog.  (In fact, the main reason I've gotten as far as I have is that
very few people around here know Python, so they've got relatively open
minds about it.)  It's not fair, it's not rational, but that's the way it
is.

> Right now you're essentially in the tough position of showing that Python
> is perfect, which it's not, so you're bound to lose the argument.

You misjudge the situation.  I like Python a lot, but I don't really have
what you would call a passion for it.  (My passions run in other
directions.)  What's happening here is that I see an opportunity for
Python potentially expanding into a cool new market, but meeting
resistance.  I see a way to overcome that resistance while at the same
time IMO improving the language with minimal impact on existing
infrastructure.  But I am not engaged in any argument with anyone, so I'm
not "bound to lose."  All I'm doing is bringing a problem and a suggestion
for a solution to your attention for your consideration.

E.