What has PEP 285 done to us?

[Ken Seehof]

Lumberjack flamed:
> Tim Peters <tim.one at comcast.net> wrote:
> > PEP 285 taught us that people don't agree, and that some people
> > disagree in disagreeable ways.  Frankly, that wasn't news,
>
> Amazing to see so much slow learning taking place. So why don't
> you all do
> it again some time. Like the next PEP and the next one and the next one,
> and so on ad infinitum. Just like previous PEPs. The old Chinese water
> torture would be more humane than continuing these unending so-called
> "enhancements" to the language. Drip drip drip... Neither you nor Guido
> have a clue; unless this is his secret plan to destroy the appeal
> of Python
> by setting Python programmers at each other's throats, or they begin to
> associate emotional discord with the language and decide to keep their
> distance. If so, the plan is well executed.
>
> People aren't going to change, so Guido needs to adjust to the reality of
> the political consequences of his current strategy.

Thank you for your excellent self-referential example of disagreeable
disagreement.

The Chinese water torture image does have the virtue of being humorous at
least.  Pep... Pep... ... PEP... pep pep... Pep... Pep... Pep...

I don't subscribe to the belief that PEPs are causing people to behave
abusively.  I think that that phenomenon is the responsibility of those
who engage in such behaviour.  It is quite possible to express ones
opinions without resorting to personal attacks.  Also it is sometimes
even helpful to acknowledge your opponents point of view, since nearly
every argument has at least some merit.

It is probably true that more change creates more opportunity for debate,
and therefore more opportunity for discord, even if the actual changes are
beneficial.  IMO, this is not in itself sufficient reason to avoid change.

I understand the desire to make all of the following changes:

1. The overall rate of changes to python needs improvement.
1a) Don't make any changes to python ever.
1b) Decrease the rate of change.
1c) Increase the rate of change.
1d) Hurry up and ship 3.0

2. The rate of new releases needs improvement.
2a) Spread out changes over more releases
2b) Combine changes into fewer releases

3. The version numbering system needs improvement.
3a) There are a variety of possible changes to the present system
    although I can't think of any at the moment :-)

All of these changes have their respective advantages and disadvantages.
They all have large numbers of people in favor and against them.
Although I find myself frequently disagreeing on specific PEPs, I like
the process as a whole and would not be in favor of any of these changes.

Interestingly, I have reversed my opinion on each of the implemented PEP's
that I had previously disliked and argued against.

I am glad we are not still using python 1.1 because on the whole, python
2.2 really is better.  Although I see the potential for so called "chinese
water torture" to cause people problems, I for one have found the whole
process (since version 1.5.2 for me) extremely smooth, especially when
compared to Microsoft Visual C++.  I attribute this to the fact that Guido
has taken great care to make sure that changes have minimum impact on
backward compatibility.

It is not logical to argue for significantly slower changes to python
without taking the position that the value of improvements since version
1.5.2 integrated over the population of python users since 1.5.2 and into
the forseeable future is less than the pain caused by dealing with changes
to python in the present time.  It would be nice if python could keep
getting better without changing. :-)

Note that I have made my opinions known without resorting to petty personal
attacks on Lumberjack.  I have even refrained from using words like
"childish" or "petty" to describe his personal attack on "clueless" Guido
and the entire python community of "slow learners".

<sarc> Those of you who have suddenly developed such negative opinions about
Guido should consider finding a different language.  There must be several
languages out there written by people of significantly higher moral
character.
</sarc>

I, on the other hand would like to thank Guido for creating such an
excellent
programming language.  This is not hero worship, it is simple politeness and
gratefulness.

it's-impossible-make-the-world-a-better-place-without-pissing-some-people-of
fly yrs,

- Ken Seehof