Very, Very Green Python User

[Scott David Daniels]

hanumizzle at gmail.com wrote:
> Scott David Daniels wrote:
>> hanumizzle at gmail.com wrote:
>>> ... Is the Python debugger fairly stable?
>> Yes, but it is not massively featured.  The "Pythonic" way is to
>> rarely use a debugger (test first and straightforward code should
>> lead to "shallow" bugs).  Often for most of us judiciously placed
>> print statements suffice.
>>
>>  > The one you get with Perl stinks on ice. More than
>>> anything else, I would like to have a powerful OO environment where I
>>> do not have to worry about the debugger sucking ....
>> Do watch your language on this newsgroup.  Lots of people read this
>> group and there is no good reason to offend them.  In turn, you will be
>> cut some slack.
> 
> As one who avidly studies language, I have observed that the meaning of
> a word slip out of its original context through idiomatic usage. If I
> had included the implicit object of 'sucks', 

In fact I elided the "ass" from your original "sucks ass" in my original
  quote, and now you carefully forget it in order to bolster your case.

 > then you would have more grounds for complaint. However, 'sucks',
 > used in the intransitive sense, is no worse than 'bites the bag'.

Comp.lang.python is an unusually well-mannered group.  If you look at
the messages over the past year (and exclude any chain with Xah Lee),
I think you will find your language, while not obscene, was well below
the standard for the newsgroup.  Some of us value that, and are happy
enough to leave it to other groups to express themselves more fervently.
Here you'll find even strong disagreement is usually expressed with a
careful consideration that the other person may well get offended.

By the by, you will notice I did not simply chide you about your use
of language, but rather answered your questions as best I understood
them.

Don't worry, this is the last I have to say on the subject.

--Scott David Daniels
scott.daniels at acm.org