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

[MRAB]

On 2016-02-01 03:15:10, "Chris Angelico" <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody at gmail.com> 
>wrote:
>>  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:
>>
>>  [chomp more Ranting Rick]
>>
>>  Can someone explain the policy?
>
>Bannings for anything other than out-and-out spam are incredibly rare
>(as they should be). The main difference is: Rick posts good content
>veiled by poor framing, but jmf posts the same rehashed whining about
>the same microbenchmarks, the same unbacked false statements about how
>Python is "mathematically incorrect", and absolutely no useful
>content. I tend to skim Rick's posts looking for anything that's
>actually of interest, but jmf's posts never have anything.
>
In his defence, he _was_ the one who drew attention to the unexpected 
slowness of the FSR under certain circumstances in the Windows build of 
Python 3.3, albeit in a rather over-dramatised way.

That problem was gone in the next bug-fix release.
>
>There are a lot of people here who post good content but phrase things
>poorly. And everyone has a bad day. (Terry Reedy, I'm hoping this was
>just a bad day - there were several rather caustic posts from you.
>Sorry to single you out, but I can't think of anyone else recently
>who's done that.) So long as there's something useful being said, the
>community would be worse off for their removal.
>
>That said, though, I would GREATLY prefer Rick to post less
>provocatively. But I'm not calling for his banning any more than I'd
>call for Terry's, or my own, for that matter (I've posted plenty of
>off-topic or otherwise useless posts).
>