variable declaration

[Arthur]

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 08:20:29 -0500, Jeremy Bowers <jerf at jerf.org>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:30:33 -0500, Arthur wrote:
>> What if:
>> 
>> There was a well conducted market survey conclusive to the effect that
>> adding optional strict variable declaration would, in the longer run,
>> increase Python's market share dramatically.
>> 
>> It just would.
>> 
>> Why would it?
>
>What if, by eating a special mixture of cheddar and marshmallows, you
>could suddenly fly?
>
>It just would.
>
>Why would it?
>
>(The point, since I don't trust you to get it: The "absurd question" is
>neither a valid argument technique, nor is it even good rhetoric. You
>might as well go straight to "What if I'm right and you're wrong? What
>then, huh?")

You miss my point in so many ways, its not worth enumerating.  Most
essentially is the fact that I am making no effort to be right about
anything, and don't care to be right about anything, and know better
than to hope to be  right about anything here.

>
>> My sense of how the real world works is that there is going to be one
>> anti-Python advocate lying in wait for the first bug he can find that he
>> can say would have been caught if Python had strict variable declaration,
>> as he always knew it should.
>> 
>> He wants to be the PHB someday. The current PHB knows that, and since
>> being sensitive to these kinds of realities is how he got to be the PHB,
>> he is too smart to open himself up to this kind of risk.
>> 
>> The PHB can pretty safely make the use of the option optional.  As long as
>> he is a position to jump down the throat of the programmer who created the
>> bug.
>
>You really aren't very good at this "debate" thing.

I'm a lot bettter at  it, I think, when I am trying to debate.  

*You* don't get it. I'm not. 

>
>"Look, I can construct a certain scenario whereby the dangers you propose
>don't occur (assuming that I'm even right about my scenario in the first
>place which is highly questionable). How do you respond to *that*? Huh?
>Huh? Huh? Where's your precious 'overwhelming pattern' now?"
>
>It hasn't gone anywhere.
>
>> What is the correct language design decision in light of these realities?
>
>In light of the above, I question your use of the plural.

And you would question the use of the singular, as well, if I catch
your dirft. 

>
>> But isn't this kind of where Python is at the moment?
>
>Only for you.
>
>Despite the tone of the rest of this message, I mean that. It's obviously
>a huge stumbling block for you. It isn't for the rest of us, and once
>again, I assure you, it's going to take more than spinning implausible
>isolated entirely theoretical examples to convince us otherwise.

I don't know who the rest of you are.  Whoever the rest of you are,
I'm OK with not being one of you. Really I am.

>Not only do you argue solely from anecdote, even the aforementioned
>"implausible isolated entirely theoretical" anecdote, it appears to be all
>you understand. You're going to have to do better than that. Producing a
>*real* study that shows declaration would be a good thing, instead of an
>implausible entirely theoretical one, would be a good start.

I am arguing, to the extent that I am arguing, from the hypothetical.
You can counter by saying that my hypothical premise is not even a
possiblity.

Among what you don't understand. I think, is that I would be wishing
that you were right.  But of course you wouldn't be.

Art