seeking deeper (language theory) reason behind Python design choice

[Ian Kelly]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 9:20 AM, Python <python at bladeshadow.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 02:42:48PM +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Python <python at bladeshadow.org> wrote:
>> >> Yes, and I'd go further: I *am* too stupid to get this right.
>> >
>> > No, you are not.  Do you ever say "dog" when you mean "dot" instead?
>> > Do you ever say "dad" when you mean "mom" instead?  Internalize that
>> > "=" is "equals" (or "assigns" if you prefer) and "==" is "is equal to"
>> > then use those phrases in your head when you're thinking about which
>> > one you need in your code, and I'm pretty sure you'll stop making this
>> > mistake.  It may help that the phrase with twice as many syllables
>> > represents the operator that has twice as many characters.  Eventually
>> > it becomes second nature, like not calling Dad "Mom."
>>
>> Riiiight, of course. Because prevention of bugs is just a matter of
>> wanting to.
>
> Preventing *certain classes* of bugs, mainly botching syntax, is mostly
> just a matter of wanting to, like a piano virtuoso who can play
> complicated pieces night after night flawlessly.  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.

I'm reminded of the first bullet point of step 6 in this article,
which just crossed my inbox this morning:

https://www.e4developer.com/2018/05/13/how-to-write-horrible-java/