Increasing the diversity of people who write Python (was: Benefits of unicode identifiers)

[Andrew Z]

Thank you Rick for well thought out argument.



On Nov 24, 2017 12:44, "Rick Johnson" <rantingrickjohnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:57:12 PM UTC-6, Ben Finney wrote:
> [...]
> > This is a necessary consequence of increasing the diversity
> > of people able to program in Python: people will express
> > ideas originating in their own language, in Python code.
> > For that diversity to increase, we English-fluent folk will
> > necessarily become a smaller proportion of the programming
> > community than we are today. That might be uncomfortable
> > for us, but it is a necessary adaptation the community
> > needs to undergo.
>
> Will your heroic crusade to bring equality to the shire also
> include Python standard library modules written in languages
> other than English? If so, then you'll need to contact
> Guido, as PEP8 will require some editing.
>
> Speaking of GvR...
>
> And even if you did managed to bring multilingualism to
> Python scripts and std-lib modules, wouldn't such
> "diversity" be merely symbolic?
>
> Hmm, because, when we consider the make-up of pydev (aka:
> nothing but English speaking dudes) we realize that there
> really isn't any diversity at all. At least, not where it
> matters. (aka: where the decision are being made)
>
> Furthermore, if we are to march headlong onto the glorious
> battlefields of diversity and equality, for the sake of all
> else, then, why should Guido's position be off limits? I
> mean, sure, he may a brilliant man. But he's surely not the
> most brilliant man on this planet, is he?
>
> And with that liberating thought in mind, may i offer an
> excerpt, for your intellectual consumption, from one of the
> most famous documents of all time?
>
>     (emphasis mine)
>
>     "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long
>     established should not be changed for light and transient
>     causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that
>     [humankind] are more disposed to _suffer_ while evils are
>     _sufferable_, than to right themselves by abolishing the
>     forms to which they are "accustomed"; but when a ~long~
>     train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
>     same object, evinces a _design_ to reduce them under
>     absolute *DESPOTISM* -- It is their *RIGHT*! It is their
>     *DUTY*! -- to throw off such government and to provide new
>     guards for their future security"
>
>     ...Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776
>
> I'm of the opinion that diversity is fine, so long as you
> don't make the fatal mistake of "lopping off your nose to
> spite your face".
>
> Take, for example, the accommodations our societies offer
> for handicapped people -- from wheel chair ramps, to
> reserved front-row parking spaces, to widened doorways,
> etc... -- these accommodations do *NOT*, in any way,
> undermine the accessability of healthy people who also utilize
> these same public spaces. In fact, the worst consequence of
> these accommodations might be that you and i must walk a few
> more steps from our car to the market.
>
> Big deal!
>
> But what you are suggesting is not so much an
> _accommodation_, as it is a fundamental fissure in our
> ability to communicate, one that will fracture the community
> far more than it is today. It would be as foolish as
> mandating that everyone must have their legs lopped-off, so
> that all will be "equal".
>
> Yes, diversity is great! But only when it welcomes outsiders
> without undermining the practical cohesiveness of the wider
> community. And if the result of your little "inclusivity
> project" is merely the replacement of N domestic community
> members with N foreign community members, foreigners who's
> regional dialects will muck-up the communication process,
> then it seems to me that what you have gained is merely a
> fulfillment of your _own_ emotional needs, at the expense of
> all.
>
> In conclusion.
>
> While a wise student of knowledge recognizes that:
>
>     (1) social groups who have waxed into a homogenous block
>     actually undermine themselves, because they lack the
>     essential diversity of ideas required to see beyond the
>     walls of their own "box", and the confirmation bias that
>     infests such societies, will ensure that such a community is
>     an evolutionary dead end.
>
> The same student _also_ recognizes that:
>
>     (2) a society which resembles a jig-saw-puzzle dumped
>     haphazardly on the floor, lacks the essential _cohesiveness_
>     required to maintain a strong sense of _community_, a sense
>     which allows multiple individuals to work towards a common
>     goal, in manner this is both practical and efficient.
>
> Something to think about.
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>