"Super()" confusion

[Daniel Fetchinson]

>>>>>>> Consider whether you really need to use super().
>>>>>>> http://fuhm.net/super-harmful/
>>>>
>>>> Because throwing around that link carries about the same amount of
>>>> information as "perl is better than python", "my IDE is better than
>>>> yours", "vim rulez!", "emacs is cooler than vim", etc, etc.
>>>
>>> Not at all. It contains accurate and valuable information that isn't
>>> available elsewhere.
>>
>> But does not contain other valuable information which would demystify
>> super. If only this source is shown to a person who wants to learn the
>> proper usage of super, the impression he/she gets will be distorted.
>
> Why so? At the end there is a "best practices" recipe that pretty much
> summarizes the proper usage of super, and AFAIK it's the right way to use
> it. Don't you agree with any of the conclusions?
>
>> Example: 1. somebody asks about threading 2. reply comes: there is a
>> GIL! you can't do real threading. Now this reply might be technically
>> more-or-less correct, it is misleading and does not help the poster.
>> An informed discussion of the various solutions that does not involve
>> a rant about the GIL would be very useful though.
>
> As I said, the article presents a "recipe" for super() usage, and I'd
> consider it very helpful. It's far from just saying "super s*cks!", or
> "the GIL s*cks!" or something like that.
>
>> You might want to start with
>>
>> http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=236275
>
> ...which, although the author says it was written a long time ago, was not
> published until less than six months ago, and has very low visibility.
>
>> You are right, it's not in the documentation. But if somebody asks on
>> c.l.p the appropriate answer, I think, is to point to information such
>> as the one above, and not the misleading "harmful" essay.
>
> According to Google, nobody has menctioned the "harmful" essay in this
> group since April 2008 [1], months before Simionato's article were
> available... So this is the *first* time the reference to the former essay
> could have been replaced by M.S.' one... don't be so strict!
>
> Anyway, the right thing to do, IMHO, is to publish correct and accurate
> documentation in the main Python site. Not everybody knows about this
> group existence, nor has the time/experience/interest on subscribe here,
> post a question and wait for an answer. I've seen some posts in python-dev
> saying something like "this is confusing, we should evangelize people on
> c.l.p. on the right way to do it" and I completely disagree; the right
> place for such things is the product documentation, or -to a much lesser
> degree because it's online only- some article collection linked from the
> main site (like the "Other resources" left bar, already present).
>
>>>> Honestly, I don't understand how this thing got so much out of
>>>> control. If anyone starts an intelligent question or remark about
>>>> super, this essay is thrown in no matter what. Anyone can explain why?
>>>
>>> Because for a very loooooong time (seven years, 2001-2008) super was
>>> almost undocumented. The Library Reference -before release 2.6- only
>>> had a short paragraph, the [...]
>>
>> You are right, the documentation needs some work in this regard. But
>> again, just because some sources are not in the documentation doesn't
>> mean that the most opinionated essay is the best source. A little
>> search turns up much more useful ones.
>
> (not according to Google [2]: I get the "harmful" article in the top, the
> thread in python-dev, a couple threads in c.l.p including posts by M.S.,
> his article in artima, and nothing more relevant than "Monty Python Super
> Star" up to the 3rd page)
>
> *Now* that *I* am aware of the recent article series by M.S., the next
> time someone asks *me* about super(), probably I'll refer her to both M.S.
> and J.K.'s articles. Last time I checked (perhaps one or two years ago),
> the "harmful" article was almost the only relevant source of info about
> super().
>
> [1]
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/search?q=super+harmful&start=0&scoring=d&
> [2] http://www.google.com/search?q=python+super

Okay, I think we converged to a common denominator. I agree with you
that the documentation needs additions about super and I also agree
with you that referring to both MS and JK articles is appropriate when
a question about super comes up.

It's good to have a discussion when views actually converge and not
diverge at the end :)

Cheers,
Daniel


-- 
Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown