Ideas about how software should behave

[Chris Angelico]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 5:18 AM, Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet at unequivocal.eu> wrote:
> On 2017-11-08, Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
>> I also think Jon had cause to bristle somewhat at the characterisation.
>> I don't think Jon was attacked by Steve's remark, but I do sympathise
>> with the instinct to feel a criticism as an attack.
>
> Steve called me arrogant, that's an attack - never mind that he hadn't
> the slightest justification for it. If you're going to respond again
> that he was calling the idea arrogant, then please just stop and
> think for a moment: an idea, in the abstract, cannot be arrogant.
> Arrogance is simply not a concept that applies to ideas, it is
> a concept that applies to people. If you call an idea arrogant
> you are necessarily stating that the person espousing the idea is
> guilty of arrogance - that's what the word means.

If that's true, then it's not possible for software to be
"opinionated" either, because that definitely implies something human.
And it's illogical to say "Windows is feeling cranky today" when
something inexplicably fails. Nor should you talk about autocorrect
"thinking it knows better than you". But all of these are ways that we
talk about software. Ideas are just like software for our brains; when
they're complex enough, they have lives and characteristics of their
own.

I suppose if this were comp.lang.iso.standardized.python or something,
we could stick with dry and dull language, and avoid any of these
problems. But personally, I would consider that a step backwards. The
occasional confusion is the price we pay for what we have - and don't
forget, we're discussing a language that derives heavily from high
class comedy. Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
(possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
to clearing this up.

ChrisA