psss...I want to move from Perl to Python

[Rustom Mody]

On Monday, February 1, 2016 at 5:22:22 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 1/31/2016 5:34 PM, Fillmore wrote:
> > On 01/30/2016 05:26 AM, wxjmfauth wrote:
> >
> >>> Python 2 vs python 3 is anything but "solved".
> >> Python 3.5.1 is still suffering from the same buggy
> >> behaviour as in Python 3.0 .
> >
> > Can you elaborate?
> 
> Please do not propagate jmf's repeated trolls to python-list


On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:57:28 PM UTC+5:30, wxjmf wrote:

> Python 3.5.1 is still suffering from the same buggy
> behaviour as in Python 3.0 .

is banned

whereas this is not:

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:01:09 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:21:21 AM UTC-6, Ulli Horlacher wrote:
> > I nearly gave up with Python at the very beginning before
> > I realised that OO-programming is optional in Python! :-)
> > Most tutorials I found so far makes OO mandatory.
> 
> Just more evidence that old dogs are incapable of learning
> new tricks. Either learn how to wield Neuroplasticity to
> your advantage, or go curl up into a ball and wait for death
> to come. People who are unwilling to "expanding their
> intellectual horizons" make me sick!!!


Not to mention endless screeds like this one:



On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:00:12 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 2:49:24 PM UTC-6, sohca... at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > I'm convinced that anyone who actually prefers Perl's
> > syntax over Python is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Readability counts.  I'd say readability is one of the
> > most important features of a language, as you will read
> > your code far more than you write it.  Perl is not
> > readable.  I don't care how powerful your language is if
> > you can't read it.
> 
> EXACTLY!
> 
> Which is the same reason why natural language is bound by
> many structural rules. For instance: we utilize "syntactical
> structures" like sentences and paragraphs to create
> "comprehensible groupings", and we *NEVER* want to
> arbitrarily, or randomly, use more than one space between
> words, or more than one line between paragraphs.
> 
> STRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT!
> 
> And the only thing more important than a "self-imposed
> structure" is a steadfast adherence to the "collective style
> guides" of written communication. When we *ALL* utilize a
> familiar structure, we will *ALL* spend less time
> *CONSCIOUSLY INTERPRETING* superficial structural details,
> and more time *ABSORBING* the actual meaning of the content.
> 
> ABSORPTION IS THE GOAL, NOT ABERRATION!
> 
> The goal of written communication is no different than any
> other technology. We should strive to abstract away as much
> as possible to the sub-conscience processes of our mind as
> we can, so that we can target our mental focus purely on the
> comprehension of content, *NOT* comprehension of structure!
> When faced with an unfamiliar "syntactical structure", our
> high level focus becomes "mired in the minutiae of the
> superficial".
> 
> EVEN WHEN NECESSARY, THE SUPERFICIAL IS NOT IMPORTANT!
> 
> The goal of communication should never be (either
> intentional or not) to distract or impress our readers with
> our capacity to create "self-aggrandizing ornateness of
> structure", which will undoubtedly obfuscate the intended
> message, no, but to *STRICTLY* follow the collective
> standards and practices of "acceptable syntactical
> structuring" that will *facilitate* a smooth transition
> between: ideas that are codified into symbolic languages,
> and the translation of those linguistic symbols into concepts
> in the mind of the reader.
> 
> ABSTRACTIONS ARE VITAL TO OUR COMPREHENSION OF COMPLEX
> COMMUNICATION MEDIUMS!
> 
> For communication to function (at it's most basic level)
> these abstractions must exist simultaneously in our codified
> symbolic languages *AND* in our mental processes that
> interpret them. But whilst our mental abstractions are
> mostly unconscious, they can become disturbed when
> dissonance is injected into symbolic languages in the form
> of "poor syntactical structure". Break either link in the
> chain, and a "smooth transition of ideas" becomes untenable.

Can someone explain the policy?