* Alf P. Steinbach:
* Steve Holden:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Steven D'Aprano:
Nobody is trying to understate the complexity of writing a large
application that supports both 2.6 and 3.x, or of taking an existing
library written for 2.5 and upgrading it to support 3.1. But the
magnitude of these tasks is no greater (and potentially smaller) than
supporting (say) 2.3 through 2.5. To describe it as "hopeless" is
simply mistaken and weakens your credibility.
It seems that people here put a lot of meaning into "hopeless"...
Because they are programmers, so they tend to read your meaning quite
literally. Would you have them do anything else?
When you write "literally" you're referring to choosing *a* meaning that
does not make sense in general.
In some cases that's relevant because to choose a more reasonable
meaning may require knowledge that a reader doesn't have, and it's good
when that's pointed out, because it can increase the clarity of the text.
But yes, I would rather have those few people who consistently choose
generally meaningless interpretations, and they're just a few people,
let that be said, to rather point out some technical errors or e.g. ways
that things can be explained so they're more easy to grok.
Would it be better to say that it's "hard" or "very hard" or
"impractical for the novice"?
What would a novice want with writing portable code anyway?
My point is that the (perhaps to be) book is *not* based on that
approach, so I find it difficult to understand the point of your question.
But treating it as a sort of theoretical question I can think of some
reasons, including not having to unlearn, easy availability of tools,
and the same reasons as for a professional, increasing the usability of
the code.
But those reasons are all outweighted by the difficulty of doing it.
After all, the bug that this thread is about demonstrated that unit
tests designed for 2.x do not necessarily uncover 3.x incompatibilities.
Even at the level of Python's own standard library.
But, regarding reformulations that don't imply untrue things to anyone
(or nearly), I'd like the text on that page to still fit on one page.
:-)
Modulo the smiley, what on earth is supposed to be funny about the way
you waste people's time with trips down semantic ratholes?
Regarding "waste of time" I would love some more substantial comments,
pointing out e.g. technical errors. But so far nearly all comments have
been about terminology, how things can be misunderstood by a
non-knowledgable reader. To me these comments, while not the kind that I
would most prefer, are still useful, while it appears that in your view
it is a waste of time and about semantic ratholes -- but if it is,
then you're characterizing-by-association the persons here bringing up
those issues, not me.
Are you sure that that's what you wanted to express?
You say something is "hopeless", which can generally be taken to mean
that nobody should even bother to try doing it
Almost so: a novice should not bother trying to do it.
, and then retreat into
argument when a counter-example is provided.
I'm sorry but that's meaningless.
This thread is an example that even with the most extensive effort and
the presumably best programmers one doesn't necessarily manage to get
2.x code to work /correctly/ with 3.x -- even when 2.x compatibility
is not required!
That's the kind of example that matters.
Just for once, could you consider admitting you might have been wrong?
That's what a change means, what this thread that you're replying in
means: an admission that my formulation wasn't perceived the way I
thought it would be
Oops sorry, wrong thread.
The thread I thought this was in: "Those two controversial 2nd & 3rd paragraphs
of my ch 1"
And I thank those people who insisted that I change this.
But it's very untrue that I'm always right, or that I have some problem
admitting to wrongs. For example, this thread is a counter example to
your implication. And one needs only one counter example, but there are
many. It seems that you're objecting to me being competent, and would
rather have me make a lot more errors. Which is a bit silly. However,
discussing persons is IMHO generally off-topic here. In technical forums
it's what people do when they don't have any good arguments.
Btw., see above. :-)
CHeers,
- Alf
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
