On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 08:20:29 -0500, Jeremy Bowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:30:33 -0500, Arthur wrote: >> What if: >> >> There was a well conducted market survey conclusive to the effect that >> adding optional strict variable declaration would, in the longer run, >> increase Python's market share dramatically. >> >> It just would. >> >> Why would it? > >What if, by eating a special mixture of cheddar and marshmallows, you >could suddenly fly? > >It just would. > >Why would it? > >(The point, since I don't trust you to get it: The "absurd question" is >neither a valid argument technique, nor is it even good rhetoric. You >might as well go straight to "What if I'm right and you're wrong? What >then, huh?") You miss my point in so many ways, its not worth enumerating. Most essentially is the fact that I am making no effort to be right about anything, and don't care to be right about anything, and know better than to hope to be right about anything here. > >> My sense of how the real world works is that there is going to be one >> anti-Python advocate lying in wait for the first bug he can find that he >> can say would have been caught if Python had strict variable declaration, >> as he always knew it should. >> >> He wants to be the PHB someday. The current PHB knows that, and since >> being sensitive to these kinds of realities is how he got to be the PHB, >> he is too smart to open himself up to this kind of risk. >> >> The PHB can pretty safely make the use of the option optional. As long as >> he is a position to jump down the throat of the programmer who created the >> bug. > >You really aren't very good at this "debate" thing. I'm a lot bettter at it, I think, when I am trying to debate. *You* don't get it. I'm not. > >"Look, I can construct a certain scenario whereby the dangers you propose >don't occur (assuming that I'm even right about my scenario in the first >place which is highly questionable). How do you respond to *that*? Huh? >Huh? Huh? Where's your precious 'overwhelming pattern' now?" > >It hasn't gone anywhere. > >> What is the correct language design decision in light of these realities? > >In light of the above, I question your use of the plural. And you would question the use of the singular, as well, if I catch your dirft. > >> But isn't this kind of where Python is at the moment? > >Only for you. > >Despite the tone of the rest of this message, I mean that. It's obviously >a huge stumbling block for you. It isn't for the rest of us, and once >again, I assure you, it's going to take more than spinning implausible >isolated entirely theoretical examples to convince us otherwise. I don't know who the rest of you are. Whoever the rest of you are, I'm OK with not being one of you. Really I am. >Not only do you argue solely from anecdote, even the aforementioned >"implausible isolated entirely theoretical" anecdote, it appears to be all >you understand. You're going to have to do better than that. Producing a >*real* study that shows declaration would be a good thing, instead of an >implausible entirely theoretical one, would be a good start. I am arguing, to the extent that I am arguing, from the hypothetical. You can counter by saying that my hypothical premise is not even a possiblity. Among what you don't understand. I think, is that I would be wishing that you were right. But of course you wouldn't be. Art -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
