seeking deeper (language theory) reason behind Python design choice

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 10:20:06 -0500, Python wrote:

> Preventing *certain classes* of bugs, mainly botching syntax, is mostly
> just a matter of wanting to, 

That comment is very ignorant of the mental processes involved in both 
language processing and typing, two skills used in programming. You can't 
prevent errors merely, or even "mostly", by wanting not to make errors.


> like a piano virtuoso who can play
> complicated pieces night after night flawlessly.

Right up until the moment that they make a mistake, which they do.

Virtuosos suffer from fatigue or injuries, they have slumps, they have 
bad days, they often cannot reproduce the same performance (every 
performance is unique since they are not robots that can repeat every 
minute motion over and over again) and they make mistakes. "Flawlessly" 
does not mean without flaw, it is mere hyperbole.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/
classicalconcertreviews/10878171/Khatia-Buniatishvili-Queen-Elizabeth-
Hall-review-sorely-disappointing.html


> It just takes focus
> and practice.  Preventing the = vs. == bug is nowhere near as complex or
> difficut as La Campanella, so you don't even need to be a virtuoso.  You
> just have to be mindful and careful.

Botched syntax is a form of botched spelling.

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2018-May/733040.html

Maybe you just didn't want to spell "pposted" or "lenghty" correctly?


À propos of nothing, I used to know somebody who seriously used to argue 
that his spelling mistakes were deliberate. Not as as a self-deprecating 
joke. He literally tried to convince people that whenever he spelled 
something incorrectly, it was a deliberate choice for "irony" or 
"rhetorical effect" or "my own personal reasons". He fooled nobody.

Very sad, the extents people will go to to fool themselves into believing 
that they have 100% control over each and every one of their actions. 
Just sayin'.



-- 
Steve