Do other Python GUI toolkits require this?

[Antoon Pardon]

On 2007-04-20, Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> On 2007-04-20, Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote:
>>> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>>>> On 2007-04-19, sjdevnull at yahoo.com <sjdevnull at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 19, 6:54 am, Antoon Pardon <apar... at forel.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is a mathematical
>>>>>> absurdity but consider this: If you find that common usage propagates
>>>>>> something that is incorrect, should we just shrug it off or should we
>>>>>> attemp a correction?
>>>>> a) In English, "learning curve" is not restricted to a mathematical
>>>>> plot--Webster's also defines it as "the course of progress made in
>>>>> learning something".  In that context, adding the adjective steep
>>>>> ("extremely or excessively high...STEEP implies such sharpness of
>>>>> pitch that ascent or descent is very difficult") makes sense.
>>>> How much sense does it really make? Suppose we would talk about
>>>> an income curve. Would you not prefer a steep curve over a shalow
>>>> one? What about a productivity curve? It is all about the progress
>>>> made in something.
>>>>
>>>> So how much sense does it make that a steep curve in earnings and
>>>> productivity is good but a steep curve in learning is bad?
>>>>
>>> Just as much sense as that a motor car is great for driving around in 
>>> but bad for being run over by. Context is everything. Do *all* steep 
>>> curves have to be good or all bad? What the hell happened to common sense?
>> 
>> You are just grabbing for straws. Sure context is everything. But you
>> don't make a case that the context makes a difference here. Are you
>> suggesting progres in productivity is good but progres in learning is bad?
>> 
> No, I'm suggesting that in the company of thousands of people, most of 
> whom agree that a "steep learning curve" means, in the face of all 
> logic, that something is difficult to learn, you stop banging your head 
> against the wall and trying to "prove" them "wrong" (presumably because 
> it's important to you to be "right").

Thousands of people can be wrong. Now I don't particularly want
to prove them wrong. But if instead of ignoring the remark as
I suggested, they start trying to prove they are right, I will
point out where their thinking is wrong.

> As has been said already at least twice in this thread, language is 
> about communication. Human beings aren't always entirely rational no 
> matter how much we may individually strive for correctness, and 
> sometimes our only options are to either go with the flow or stand 
> valiantly, pissing into the wind.

But if a wrong idea is circulating and nobody ever tries to correct it,
people will continue with the wrong idea. All I did was make a simple
remark, that as I suggested anyone could ignore, but that would allow
those willing to learn, to further investigate.

But what a terrible thing that seems to be.

>> Just asserting how something can make a difference withouth arguing
>> how in the particular case it actucally makes a difference is just
>> a divertion tactic without real merrit.
>> 
> In the face of a notion that all steep curves determining "progress made 
> in something" must be good I stand with my mouth agape. I am aware that 
> common usage does not concur with academic rigor, but in this particular 
> instance I'm with the common herd.

Well that notion is entirely yours. My notion was only that progres in
productivity, earnings and learning was good and thus that curves that
are to be prefered tend to be the same shape for those three subjects.

-- 
Antoon Pardon