Case insensitivity

[Alex Martelli]

Arthur wrote:

>>Incidentally, if exchange of personal experiences is all that interests
> you, the if you "disagree" (with what? >with my _experiences_?!), you
> presumably just present your own in return, and that's it.
> 
> Must be a deep wound.

Not particularly.  It's a MINOR wart.  It stands out only because
Python is so blissfully free of MAJOR ones.


> My point was only that there was no way to get anywhere on this isssue by
> focusing on the "novices" aspect. If you like, precisely *because* of the
> lack of anything anyone can agree on as decisive evidence.

There's no way to get anywhere on this issue by ANY mean, and no
"decisive evidence" can ever be presented along ANY routes: there
is NO way to ever change *somebody else's* opinion -- the BEST
you can hope for is that THEY will want to change THEIR OWN
opinion, and that requires an amount of goodwill and open
mindedness that is clearly not present on this issue.

If one side can point to a study which shows "85% of X have a problem
with this" and the other side SAYS "the best hard evidence" is a
counterstudy with a self-selected 6% responding and, of those, 60%
claiming otherwise, what does it matter whether X is "novices",
"programmers in general", "experts", or "pandas born on full-moon
wednesdays"?  It should be obvious that communication is just not
going to happen and there's just no way to get anywhere about this.


> I was sincerely interested in your point of view on case sensitivity, as a
> user.  Not goading you. Because I actually feel that the discussion went
> off
> track Round One, on the novice issue.  And perhaps did not get a fair
> hearing on its merits, as a deeper design issue.  Or in terms of the
> impact
> on the advanced user. *That* is new territory.  And if it going to be
> discussed, as an abstract matter, why? - if not to hit new territory.

Assuming that you do indeed, as you claim, have sincere interest
in discussing issues, I would earnestly urge you to stop using such
devices as questions intended to be rhetorical -- MOST particularly
when the answer to them is NOT as obvious as you claim or appear to
believe it is.  Because, when you do, then obviously the focus of
your respondent will be to dismantle the false assumption built into
your rhetorical device, rather than on letting that go by unchallenged
in order to engage in substantive discussion.

I'm sure you have what look to you like the best of reasons to
choose to engage in such rhetorical devices, but their effect may
not be what you're looking for.

So, to answer your question: if an issue is going to be discussed
anyway, even though the discussion is not going to change Python
in any case; there are many possible motivations besides that of
"hitting new territory".  None of those makes the discussion in
the least USEFUL, mind you, but then, neither would hitting new
territory be, since Python's NOT going to be changed anyway.  A
likely motivation to bring up the discussion again on the part of
those whose theses are forevermore embedded into Python might be
to gloat on their victory, or to seek solace for some unconscious
guilt sense deriving from "knowing, deep down" that their attacks
in the past against possible enhancements have in fact _damaged_
Python's future versions.  A likely motivation for the "losing"
side to respond to such barbs on the part of the "victors" would
be to stubbornly refuse to concede the "high moral ground" to the
other side: you've won on the field, this doesn't mean you were
"right" in your arguments, nor that we'll let you bamboozle new
readers on the subject.  After all, many who read today were not
reading back when the issue was fought over in the past, so the
arguments are not old and boring to THEM.

This would hold for most any subject.  For case sensitivity, in
particular, there is a further poignant issue: even though Python
itself is doomed to remain case-sensitive forevermore, Python will
be used to implement MANY other "little languages" of many sorts.
By rehashing the advantages of case-insensitivity, we can hope to
influence many more of those little languages to adopt that approach
and thereby enhance the sum total of happiness in the universe;-).

I deeply disagree that the matter can be dealt with properly WITHOUT
considering the "beginner effect" -- or that the need to consider
beginners was in any way responsible for "the discussion getting
off-base".


> And that is my basis for wishing you not, for example, to go down the
> novice
> track again.  We know where it leads.

Exactly where any other track leads on this subject: nowhere.
David Mertz, just to name one excellent author, has posted
copiously on the subject, without explicitly mentioning novices,
and where did that get him, you, or the discussion?  Nowhere, of
course.  We have a proverb, in Italy: there's no worse deafness
than that of him who doesn't want to hear.  What's weird in this
case, if one didn't consider the above issues of psychology, is
that it IS the ones who don't want to hear who keep waking up
the ghost of this subject, despite the best entreaties against it.


Alex