threading

[Rick Johnson]

A overview of the Py-Venactular used in this thread: 
by Professor Rick

############################################################
#                       Finny Said:                        #
############################################################
# "Threading is very difficult to get right"               #
############################################################

Hmm, and I wonder how difficult threading would be to "get"
left? Or perhaps  the proper explanation would be:

    "Using the Python threading module *correctly* can be
    difficult to *contemplate* by mere mortals (and even
    most experts, just ask GvR!).
 
Which can be future trimmed to: 

    "If the implementation is difficult to explain (or use),
    it's probably a bad idea. -PythonZen
        
############################################################
#                        Roy Said:                         #
############################################################
# "Threading makes it incredibly difficult to reason about #
# program execution."                                      #
############################################################

Makes "what" incredibly difficult? Makes *reasoning* very
difficult?

############################################################
#                        Roy Said:                         #
############################################################
# "It's not just that things happen asynchronously, the    #
# control flow changes happen at arbitrary times."         #
############################################################

Your first four words are superfluous and could have simply
been replaced with "because" or "since". Below I've joined
both sentences into a complete thought, observe:

    "Threading renders reasoning of program execution
    difficult, because of unpredictable control flow."
        
    "Since control flow is unpredictable, use of the Python
    threading module is not advised when parallel processing
    will suffice."
    
############################################################
#                       Chris Said:                        #
############################################################
# Is it efficient to create processes under Windows?       #
############################################################

Is "what" efficient? Creating processes? You just said that!
Now I'm confused? :-(

############################################################
#                       Marko Said:                        #
############################################################
# Another way to look at it...[snip]                       #
############################################################

Look at what? There should be no visual learners here. 

############################################################
#                       Marko Said:                        #
############################################################
# I don't think it worked out all that well.               #
############################################################
        
If you want to poke a stick in someones eye then do it
explicitly, don't be a wuss by using implicit expletives.
Instead you could have post fixed this snarky remark to your
main idea: "-- Obviously the attempt was an abysmal
failure!".


############################################################
#                        Paul said:                        #
############################################################
# I keep hearing about all the perils of threading bugs    #
# and it just hasn't happened to me in Python as far as I  #
# know.                                                    #
############################################################

What has not happened to you? "threading bugs"?

============================================================
 Summary:
============================================================
I'm far too lazy to continue on --since the transcribing and
corrections for just this "relatively short" thread could
take hours--, and my intentions are not to belittle any of
our fine community members, however, sometimes we all need
to be reminded of our own weaknesses. 

I would hope that my fellow members would consider investing
more thought into the structure and coherency of their
posts. A little proof reading can go a long way you know!
But most importantly, i would hope that they might realize
the damage done not only to the coherency of this groups
message from the habitual usage of expletives, but also, to
their own logical expression of ideas.

So, next time you find yourself writing the word "it", stop
and ask yourself these questions:

    "What is "it" referring to? 
    
    "Did i unconsciously use "it" to beg the question, or
    underscore the obvious?"    
    
    "Does the removal of "it" from this sentence effect the
    interpretation of my expression?"    
    
You see, there are very few instances where an "it" is
required, and if you're communication skills are honed you
can just about never use the word "it" again.

============================================================
 "It", FINALLY EXPLAINED!!!
============================================================

    "IT" IS A CRUTCH WIELDED BY LAZY COMMUNICATORS. 

I warn you that not only will "it" impede the interpretation
of your ideas, "it" will also degrade your ability to think
clearly when expressing yourself and slow (or completely
halt) your linguistic evolution.

    HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT YOUR INNER MONOLOGUE NEVER USES "IT"? 

Indeed! 

That's because "it" is a habitual viral infestation of the
human communication interface. "It" cannot exits in the
purely logical realm of the mind. We must stop the future
propagation of "it" and work to eradicate "it" from our
vernacular if we wish to achieve logical nirvana.