Mark H Harris <harrismh...@gmail.com> writes: > So, when anyone points out that Python does not have variables, but > rather Python has names bound to objects... they are being most > helpful. > > As I pointed out earlier, I think the better approach would be to find > positive language for helping new folks understand Python's beautiful > heart, than the relatively negative language of stating Python has no > variables.
You are implying a dichotomy which I don't think is useful: that providing accurate models is “a better approach” than pointing out existing fallacies. Rather, the better approach IMO is to use *both*: point out existing fallacies *and* replace them with more accurate models. That's why I always try to say “Python doesn't have variables the way you might know from many other languages”, *and* say “instead, it has references bound to objects” — *in the same message*. Negative, to point out the fallacy; positive, to provide the replacement. Presenting an accurate model is valuable, but it's much less valuable in isolation than pointing out that the accurate model *is superior to*, and should replace, the existing less-accurate model in the receiver's brain. One must necessarily use negative language to achieve that. -- \ “Religious faith is the one species of human ignorance that | `\ will not admit of even the *possibility* of correction.” —Sam | _o__) Harris, _The End of Faith_, 2004 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
