Comment on draft PEP for deprecating six builtins

[James J. Besemer]

Brian Quinlan wrote:

> Decide for yourself:
>
> 1 a : of or relating to an enemy <hostile fire>
>   b : marked by malevolence <a hostile act>
>   c : openly opposed or resisting <a hostile critic>
>       <hostile to new ideas>
>   d : not hospitable <a hostile environment>

Well, he's not an environment so (d) is out.

(c) could apply but it's really more of a metahpore and openly opposed or
resisting is legit, right?  Frank opinions are solicited and provided -- par
for the course -- the system works.

(a) doesn't apply, as he's doesn't give any indication that he's your enemy
that I can tell.  We're all in this together and he clearly is truly trying
to help.

That leaves (b).  I don't think (b) applies either, as "malevolence" means
wishing violent harm on someone, which was not expressed or implied anywhere
in his note.

Sarcasm hardly counts as malevolence or hostility.  Sarcasm actually can be
quite jovial, in my experience.  Close friends use it all the time, right?
It's akin to humor, though, sadly, easily misinterpreted in a text only
medium.

More importantly, my original point was -- pay close attention here -- if
you think Lumberjack was AT ALL "hostile" you must have led a Very Sheltered
life on the Internet.  I've seen hostile and it's Not Pretty but it's in a
completely different league than this.  After all, Lumberjack did NOT (!)
get into the PEP writers personal grooming habits, his sexual orientation,
number of partners, probable predisposition for bestiality or pedophilia,
his mother's mating or grooming habits, drug use or anything truly
'hostile,'  IMHO.  "Hostile" is a whole 'nother universe...

> I've observed in the past that people don't like to be attacked
> personally.

Well duh.

But I gotta say some people here act like kindergarden kids, "Boo Hoo Hoo,
mommy, mommy the bad man used Sarcasm."

> Then Lumberjack should attack the PEP, not the author e.g.
>
>    "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 no"
>
> Seems like an attack on PEP writers in general, not on the PEP itself.

I agree Lumberjack's post would have been completely above reproach and
otherwie Perfect if he left out this paragraph.

Nevertheless, rather than an attack on the PEP writer the sarcasm can bee
seen as a further illustration of why the PEP itself was so wrong-headed.
As originally proposed, I agree the near complete lack of credible
motivation for the PEP made it a "fantasy" (in a bad way).  And in this the
writer carelessly overlooked the responsibility to the tons of existing code
and to the user base (most of whom would simply be puzzled by the change).

Regards

--jb

--
James J. Besemer  503-280-0838 voice
http://cascade-sys.com  503-280-0375 fax
mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com