On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:36:24 -0800, Michael Tobis wrote: > On Jan 11, 8:40 pm, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > >> Read the OP's post again. His (her?) users aren't expected to create >> the toolkit, merely to use it. To create good toolkits you need both a >> master programmer and an expert in the field. It is an advantage if >> they are the same person. But to use such a good toolkit, you shouldn't >> need to be a master programmer. > > It appears we are in agreement, then. > > But that leaves me in a position where I can't understand your > complaint. There's no reason I can see for the sort of compromise you > ask for.
What compromise do you think I'm asking for? I'm suggesting that the scientists be given a brief, introductory education in *how to use their tool*, namely, Python. Instead of creating some sort of magic function that "just works" (except when it doesn't) by doing some sort of implicit "grab every object of type Obj() you can find and do processing on that", stick to the more reliable and safer technique of having the programmer explicitly provide the objects she wants to work with. > Clean abstractions benefit from their cleanliness. An automatic "run()" that uses a bunch of stuff you can't see as input is not a clean abstraction. "Do What I Mean" functions have a long and inglorious history of not doing what the user meant. There's a fundamental difference between (say) Python's automatic garbage collection and what the OP is suggesting. Explicitly deleting variables is almost always the sort of trivial incantation you rightly decry. The computer can tell when a variable is no longer reachable, and therefore is safe to delete. But the computer can't safely tell when the user wants to use a variable as input to a function. The user needs to explicitly tell the computer what is input and what isn't. The OP is suggesting taking that decision out of the hands of the user, and making every variable of type Obj automatically input. If you think that's a good idea, consider a programming tool kit with a function sum() which inspects every variable you have and adds up every one that is a number. > It's not clear that this is the sort of application where cutting > corners makes sense, so I don't see how your advice is justified. Sorry, are you suggesting that training the scientists to use their tools is cutting corners? Because I'd call the OP's suggestion to use magic functions a dangerous, ill-conceived cut corner. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
