[Paul] > I think that this class vague complaints are a little unfair. That is why we have these lists - so people _can_ disagree. > We've had > a wide range of proposals from extra functions to minor new syntax to > new magical methods to radically new control flow features. Yep - and I still lump them _all_ in the same category. I don't believe I have seen a _single_ PEP I would support (except maybe the "batteries included" one, as it doesn't change the language, just the distribution.) Is that specific enough? > It isn't helpful to lump them altogether and condemn them because Barry > broke the cardinal rule of never using an at-symbol in a feature syntax. Why do you believe I did? Where on earth did you get the impression this has anything to do with the "@" symbol? You seem to be the only one constantly raising this. Even when Barry says it is a red-herring, you wont let it die. I apologize to Barry for picking on his mail; this was not a reflection on the proposal as such, it was just the unfortunate straw that broke the serpent's back. I have changed the subject line to reflect this. > List which proposed features you like and don't > like and why! That's the only way your concerns could really be > addressed. Please re-read my original mail. I said "cool-but-not-really-necessary" features; other people have followed up and clearly understood that I was talking about code-bloat, and not that the features themselves necessarily suck. Each feature, in isolation, could possibly be bashed into something I support. When these are all combined I start having serious reservations. An example of the sum of the parts being significantly greater than the value added to the whole. > I think it is also worthwhile to recognize "conventions" that could be > made clearer with first-class syntax. List comprehensions replace the > map/lambda convention (and would IMHO, allow map/filter, at-least, to be > deprecated). Range literals replace the for i in range(...) convention > and so forth. Hrm - but in a later mail, you state: > Common Lisp and Linux are victims of feature creep. Perl and Sendmail > just suck. If we ignore the obvious bigotry in your statement (Perl and Sendmail "just suck" ?? Tell that to the orders of magnitude more people who use them than Python!) you have just addressed my concerns fairly succinctly. Maybe if you had made them in the same email you could have seen the conundrum? > Those of us who have already internalized the conventions are more > likely to see new syntax as an intrusion rather than as a long-term > clarification. Agreed - hence this debate is useful. However, I will state that the reason I skipped Perl and went for Python all those years ago was that the intent of Python code, even before I knew the language, was clear. This is a key feature of Python, and a selling point I always in my own advocacy efforts. Most of these proposals are watering that down, IMO. But I happily admit that neither you or I are able to make meaningful statements about that - we are too close it. > things in a straightforward way. I strongly feel that map/lambda and in > fact most uses of map fall into this category. The concept is fine but > the syntax sucks. Agreed. So when someone presents a solution that is obvious to the readers of this list, we will be well on our way. This hasn't happened yet. If you can't quickly and quietly win this friendly audience over, IMO the proposal has failed. If any proposal causes even a small thread on this forum that boils down to "but its not clear to me what this should do", then I would have thought it self-evident that the proposal sucks. Convincing us that it _should_ be obvious if only we were all a little brighter and more willing to accept change for changes sake doesn't help anyone, least of all the person making these statements. (Let me be clear that this last statement is not directed personally at Paul!) Standing-by-everything-I-said-ly, Mark.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4