Python's popularity statistics

[Laura Creighton]

Cameron Laird:
> In article <mailman.1039772834.3225.python-list at python.org>,
> Laura Creighton  <lac at strakt.com> wrote:
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> >Moreover, perform this experiment.  Get out your copy of 
> >_Design Patterns_ [Gof4].  The original, the C++ one.  (You
> >do have one, don't you.  You really need one.  You really,
> >really, need one even if you already know that programming in
> >C++ is one of those challenging difficult accomplishments you
> >will be perfectly happy to always leave for somebody else.
> >Trust me on this.)
> >
> >Now go check the code.  Look at just _how much_ code in the patterns
> >is dedicated to 'getting around the C++ type system'.  Not just in
> >things like the Adapter Pattern -- in every Pattern in the book.  I'd
> >say about half of the code in the book is dedicated to this.
> >
> >Now, ask yourself, do you have a personal deal cut with God so that
> >you don't get to make mistakes in the code that is non-essential to the 
> >Pattern, leaving only the Pattern part to get wrong like the rest of us 
> >programmers in a dynamic language, or would you be better off if half 
> >your code base went away?
> >
> >Laura 
> >
> 
> I'm just repeating all this 'cause I think it's 
> so important and Laura has expressed it so per-
> fectly.

blush

er, for more perfect ...

'Now ask youself, did you cut a personal deal with God, guaranteeing
 that you will not make mistakes in the code that is non-essential to the
 Pattern, leaving only the Pattern part to get wrong like the rest of us
 who program in a dynamic language, or would you be better off if half
 your code base went away?'

> 
> My excuse for a follow-up is to remind readers
> that they can and should regard source code as
> a *liability*, not an asset.
> 
> Test early and often.

Pair Programming works.  if I had had Cameron sitting beside me as I
was writing that and he said, you just did something important, I
would have paid enough attention to get the details right.  As it
was ...

always-time-to-refactor-cause-there-is-always-one-more-bug,

Laura