On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:39:57 +0100, andrew cooke <and...@acooke.org> wrote:
On Sep 24, 5:20 am, Steven D'Aprano
<ste...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
Speaking as a user (although not of Andrew's domain specific language),
I'd like to say to developers PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't try to "help
me"
with half-baked unreliable solutions that only work sometimes.
There's few things worse than unreliable tools that break just when
you've come to rely on them.
[snip context]
The reason I asked for "unreliable half-baked" solutions is that I am
exploring what might be possible and, in my experience, this group
prefers to lecture me on what they think I should do rather than
answer the damn question. I was hoping that by explicitly saying that
reliability is not important, people might feel more free to give
"wild" ideas that I could learn from and improve on.
It's significant, depressing, and not at all surprising that every
person who replied to this thread told me, in one way or another, that
was I was asking was wrong or impossible or foolhardy.
I did apologise. I'm now going to recant, because (a) you're being
an arse, and (b) I agree 100% with Steven here. If a tool is going to
break on my when I need it (i.e. in the complicated cases), I don't
bother using that tool again.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
