On 2016-02-01 03:15:10, "Chris Angelico" <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:57:28 PM UTC+5:30, wxjmf wrote:
Python 3.5.1 is still suffering from the same buggy
behaviour as in Python 3.0 .
is banned
whereas this is not:
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 3:01:09 AM UTC+5:30, Rick Johnson
wrote:
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 6:21:21 AM UTC-6, Ulli Horlacher
wrote:
> I nearly gave up with Python at the very beginning before
> I realised that OO-programming is optional in Python! :-)
> Most tutorials I found so far makes OO mandatory.
Just more evidence that old dogs are incapable of learning
new tricks. Either learn how to wield Neuroplasticity to
your advantage, or go curl up into a ball and wait for death
to come. People who are unwilling to "expanding their
intellectual horizons" make me sick!!!
Not to mention endless screeds like this one:
[chomp more Ranting Rick]
Can someone explain the policy?
Bannings for anything other than out-and-out spam are incredibly rare
(as they should be). The main difference is: Rick posts good content
veiled by poor framing, but jmf posts the same rehashed whining about
the same microbenchmarks, the same unbacked false statements about how
Python is "mathematically incorrect", and absolutely no useful
content. I tend to skim Rick's posts looking for anything that's
actually of interest, but jmf's posts never have anything.
In his defence, he _was_ the one who drew attention to the unexpected
slowness of the FSR under certain circumstances in the Windows build of
Python 3.3, albeit in a rather over-dramatised way.
That problem was gone in the next bug-fix release.
There are a lot of people here who post good content but phrase things
poorly. And everyone has a bad day. (Terry Reedy, I'm hoping this was
just a bad day - there were several rather caustic posts from you.
Sorry to single you out, but I can't think of anyone else recently
who's done that.) So long as there's something useful being said, the
community would be worse off for their removal.
That said, though, I would GREATLY prefer Rick to post less
provocatively. But I'm not calling for his banning any more than I'd
call for Terry's, or my own, for that matter (I've posted plenty of
off-topic or otherwise useless posts).
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
