syntax difference

[Jim Lee]

On 06/17/2018 10:04 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 06/17/2018 05:39 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Jim Lee <jlee54 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/17/2018 02:17 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> My apologies, stuff wrapped and I misread as I skimmed back. You were
>>>>> the one who used the word "shoehorned". In the same way, that sounds
>>>>> like you already knew the language, and then someone added extra
>>>>> features that don't fit. It's not shoehorning if the feature was
>>>>> already there before you met the language.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is the same, the citation incorrect. Mea culpa.
>>>>>
>>>>> ChrisA
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is "shoehorning".  Why do you care when I started using the
>>>> language?  Shoehorning implies an attempt to add a feature that didn't
>>>> exist
>>>> in the original design - a feature that is a difficult, awkward, or
>>>> ill-fitting complement to the original design.  Whether it happened
>>>> yesterday or 12 years ago is immaterial.  When I personally met the
>>>> language
>>>> is also immaterial.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft "shoehorned" a Linux subsystem into Windows.  I don't even use
>>>> Windows, yet by your logic, I can't call it "shoehorning".
>>> Or maybe that's an indication of a change in design goals. Python's
>>> original goal was to be very similar to C, and thus had a lot of
>>> behaviours copied from C; up until Python 2.2, the default 'int' type
>>> would overflow if it exceeded a machine word. Were long integers
>>> shoehorned into the design, or does it indicate that the design was
>>> modified to welcome them?
>>>
>>> Personally, I think the Linux subsystem is (a) no different from (but
>>> converse to) Wine, and (b) a good stepping-stone towards a Windows
>>> release using a Unix kernel.
>>>
>>> ChrisA
>> I say: "frobnitz was broken".
>>
>> You say: "you can't call frobnitz broken because it was broken before you
>> found out it was broken".
>>
>>
>> I say: "foo is bad".
>>
>> You say: "foo is no different than bar (except it's the opposite), and might
>> eventually be like baz (which doesn't exist)."
>>
>>
>> Hard to argue with that kind of...umm...logic.  :)
> That isn't what I said, and you know it. I said that you can't decry
> changes that were before your time (they're simply the way things
> are). My comments about the Linux subsystem are parenthetical.
>
> ChrisA
Really?  Wow.  I'd hate to live in your world!  Just because something 
exists, it can't be challenged or questioned.  Got it!

-Jim