property() usage - is this as good as it gets?

[castironpi]

On Aug 24, 7:43 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> castironpi <castiro... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Python isn't as clever as you think.  It's a language.  
>
> Yet another non-sequitur response from you. At which point in my post
> did I make any such claims about Python's 'cleverness'?
>
> > Do you want a
> > link to clever code?  
>
> Not if you wrote it or find it clever, no.
>
> To quote Kernighan: "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in
> the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as
> possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
>
> When the code in question is one of the abstract monstrosities you
> regularly post here - often in response to _new python users_ asking
> _basic_ questions that _don't require metaclass solutions_ - I've
> repeatedly found the cost in interpreting it is just never worth the
> time and effort required.
>
> > I like to encourage creativity.
>
> Then why do you seem to stymie it? Care to go back through the
> responses to your posts and tally up the "thanks, that makes sense!"
> replies to the "I don't get what you mean here" ones?
>
> If you're seriously attempting to educate, you're failing. If you're
> trying to show how blazingly clever you are, you're failing at that,
> too.
>
> When people seem to generally consider you a markov chainer, that -
> should- be a sign to work on the clarity of your communication.

I'm baffled.  I don't understand what you write.  I think someone in
my shoes would be justified in dismissing it as either malicious or a
miscommunication.  My typical response is, take something I've said in
context, and show how it fulfills the criteria you describe.

For instance, "I won't like it if you do" and "I won't think it's
clever if you do" aren't consistent belief structures, they're fight
structures.  You have made such claims.

In the post above, I make two claims, ask two questions, and encourage
a brainstorm.  I don't see how what you say applies to it.

I am willing to change the way I communicate.  I want to communicate
effectively.  But, until someone takes something I want to say, and
says it the right way, I can't learn how.  So I wait and write Python,
and share my frustration with my peers.

Lastly, in the syllogism you propose, "not smart enough to debug it",
you equate maximally clever writing with maximally clever debugging,
which is clearly wrong.  They are distinct; someone could be better at
either one than the other.  And besides, your quoted premise "twice as
hard" is assumed, not proven.