rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> writes: > On Jan 29, 4:10 am, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > I have a quibble with the framing: > > > > > The rest of the blame lies with installers. They all treat > > > human-readable scripts like they were binaries and tuck the code > > > away in a dark corner. > > Consider this example: > The emacs source if compiled from source will give you help for each > lisp or even builtin (C) function out of the box from inside emacs. > However if you get the emacs package from debian/ubuntu you will get > neither unless you install el files -- which is fine -- just install > the el package. […]
That's an example of the point I made in what followed in my message you quoted. The description can be interpreted as accurate, but it's framed poorly. > Isn't this an instance of the problem that Raymond is talking of? The “problem”, which I don't consider to be a problem per se, is one of OS-wide policy, not “installers”. The policy is a matter of tradeoffs across the system, and isn't “tucking the code away in a dark corner”. > [Personal note: Ive been a python user and teacher for nearly 10 > years and would eagerly welcome more easy code-open-ness] Agreed. -- \ “When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no | `\ test in reality, this [the Auschwitz crematorium] is how they | _o__) behave.” —Jacob Bronowski, _The Ascent of Man_, 1973 | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
