Comment on draft PEP for deprecating six builtins

[Cliff Wells]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:51:53 -0700
James J. Besemer wrote:

> 
> Brian Quinlan wrote:
> 
> > > Huh? The "core" language wouldn't be measurably shrunk by this
> > proposal
> > > fella. Your rationale is built on air. Show us some genuine
> > _advantage_
> > > that is worth the huge _cost_ in time and effort caused by your ill-
> > > considered proposal. How about you and other PEP writers take some
> > > responsibilities for your fantasies for once? You up to helping
> > thousands
> > > rewrite their code? I thought not.
> >
> > Why the hostility?
> 
> I don't interpret this strongly worded and slightly sarcastic critique to
> be hostile.
> 
> If you call this hostile I don't think you know the meaning of the word.

It was definitely hostile.  I've seen arguments that take this route end in
physical violence.

> > I think that every PEP is a good one. Even if the PEP is ultimately
> > rejected, it promotes thought about some aspect of the language. Taking
> > responsibility sounds like stifling discussion to me.
> 
> And I don't see how his offering a strong opinion stiffles discussion.

Personal attacks are counterproductive in at least two ways:
1. They take the focus away from the actual topic being argued.  The fact that
we are discussing it now should demonstrate that. 
2. They tie the argument to the person making it.  It will be difficult for
that person to ever concede the argument as doing so would also seem to concede
the validity of the personal attacks.  It becomes a grudge match rather than a
real discussion.

> I happen to agree with just about everything he said.
> 
> This PEP is angles in the clouds stuff.  A lot of work for everybody and
> virtually zero practical benefit to anybody.

Well that's a stupid statement - *your* head is in the clouds.  

See what I mean?  Gets us nowhere. ;)


-- 
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 x308  (800) 735-0555 x308