Very, Very Green Python User

[hanumizzle at gmail.com]

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

Think about the word 'mogul'. Like 'oil mogul' or 'software mogul'.
Well, the **Mughals**, whence comes the word, were mass-murderers:

http://www.geocities.com/hindoo_humanist/mughal.html

If you were a Hindu in those times, saying 'oil mogul', would be
equivalent to saying 'oil Stalin' or 'oil Hitler' today. But this isn't
about human rights so much as it is about semantics. (Nobody likes
long-winded, abstract philosophical discussions on a technology NG.)
'Sucks' doesn't mean what it used to, at least how I used it there.

Unless one is willing to investigate the etymology of every word he
uses (like mogul, Christian, or juggernaut), there needs to be a more
lenient attitude towards use of language.