Comment on draft PEP for deprecating six builtins

[Cliff Wells]

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 12:03:35 -0700
Brian Quinlan wrote:

> > > 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.

[snip]
 
> 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 have to agree with Brian.  While Lumberjack's response did address issues
with the PEP, it was laced with personal insinuations about the PEP's author
(and PEP writers in general):

[Lumberjack]
"How about you and other PEP writers take some responsibilities for your
fantasies for once?"
"But no, you'd rather break code and make existing instructional material
obsolete"
"The [sic] would be in line with the contempt you seem to have for others.
"You think the world revolves around your notion of "rightness"?"
"I believe the organization you belong to has this chant: ..."

The overall tone was anger not reason.  Arguments stated in this fashion
deserve the same consideration they give to their opponent: none.

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