The big shots

[Dotan Cohen]

On 20/02/2008, castironpi at gmail.com <castironpi at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 5:31 pm, "Diez B. Roggisch" <de... at nospam.web.de> wrote:
>  > > May I insist?  By the criteria you've mentioned so far, nothing rules
>  > > out 'ext'.  If it's still a bad idea, there's a reason.  What is it?
>  >
>  > You imply that just because something is somehow working and even useful
>  > for a *some* people (some being maybe only you) that it would be worth
>  > including in the python standard lib. It is not.
>  >
>  > There are no really formal rules for inclusion, but these are certainly
>  > rules of thumb that are being considered:
>  >
>  >   - is it useful for *a lot of people*
>  >
>  >   - will it be mantained and maintainable for "ever" once it is part of
>  >     the standard distribution
>  >
>  >   - does it introduce external dependencies? If yes, this must be *very*
>  >     carful considered.
>  >
>  >   - is the design well-thought and mature
>  >
>  >   - does it make sense tying the release cycle of python the cycle of the
>  >     new lib
>  >
>  > And insulting the people who do work on python and do a marvellous job
>  > doing so is certainly *not* helping.
>  >
>  > Diez
>
>
> I don't know quite how to handle your reply.  Counterexamples are
>  already in.  Shall I add this to the list:
>
>    - is someone's favorite?

No, that is not reason to include something in the standard libraries.

>  You all know the allegory of the Apes and the Fire Hose.  But 'ext' is
>  actually good.

No, I don't. Does anybody else?

>  Do you have these:
>
>  - It would not get used by anyone
>  - It is not useful to very many people
>  - There is some concern it could not remain maintainable
>  - It is neither well-thought out nor mature
>  - It will not ever make sense to tie it in to the Python cycle
>
>  ?
>
>  If not, how about these:
>
>  - It doesn't match the rest of the language
>  - It's too cutting edge
>  - It is too hard to handle
>  - It would get out of hand really quickly
>  - I can't control you anymore after I let it in
>  - The functionality already exists per se
>  - It is to the rest of the language as wires #3, #4, and #5 are to RCA
>  cables

What?  Here, again, you talk of things that noone here necessarily understands.

>  - HTML 4.01 is not an improvement over HTML 4.0

How is that relevant?

>  ?
>
>  If still not, how about these:
>
>  - It hurts my feelings
>  - It foils my revenge
>  - I'd rather you toil meanially
>  - Tedious is good
>  - You shouldn't have power
>  - But I'm greedy
>  - We can't afford it

That's trolling. You are about a picometer from my killfile.

Dotan Cohen

http://what-is-what.com
http://gibberish.co.il
א-ב-ג-ד-ה-ו-ז-ח-ט-י-ך-כ-ל-ם-מ-ן-נ-ס-ע-ף-פ-ץ-צ-ק-ר-ש-ת

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?