On 07/16/2011 11:51 AM, rantingrick wrote:
1) Using only one indention token removes any chance of user error.
I'm not sure it "removes any chance of user error"...programmers are an awfully error-prone lot -- especially beginners. Picking one or the other might help reduce friction when learning or shifting between projects (which PEP-8's 4-space guideline does), but editor peculiarities may differingly save files.
2) Tabs create unity in the source code base.
This could go either way...fortunately the code is already written and tested and appropriately handles both tabs and spaces. A dictum one way or the other would break existing code on the shunned side. I can't say this is a particularly convincing argument.
3) Tabs create freedom in the form of user controlled indention. Indention width should be a choice of the reader NOT the author. We should never "code in" indention width; but that is EXACTLY what we are doing with spaces! No, the reader should be able to choose the indention width without ANY formatting required or without any collateral damage to the source code. Tabs offer freedom, spaces offer oppression.
While I prefer tabs for exactly this solitary reason, the fact that it means agreeing with rantingrick is almost argument enough to start preferring spaces. :)
4) Tabs remove the need for complicated indention/detention tools.
I'm not sure this has ever impacted me. It's always been a function of the editor, and using Vim, this is a non-issue for me. I've used several other editors as well and most worth any time-investment have options to control just this behavior (expanding tabs to spaces & how many spaces a tab should be treated as). I flip back and forth between several projects, some use PEP-8's 4-space indentations, some use a single tab, and one uses an oddball 2-space indentation. It's a single command in Vim to adjust for the projects, and the ones I work on most frequently are the ones I have set as my defaults.
We should never create languages that cater to the selfish. Our rules must take in consideration the "good of the many", and NEVER "the good of the few".
so sayith the guy who selfishly wants to change existing standards of freedom-for-many to the preference of his few? :)
-tkc -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
