Thank you Rick for well thought out argument.
On Nov 24, 2017 12:44, "Rick Johnson" <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, November 23, 2017 at 9:57:12 PM UTC-6, Ben Finney wrote: > [...] > > This is a necessary consequence of increasing the diversity > > of people able to program in Python: people will express > > ideas originating in their own language, in Python code. > > For that diversity to increase, we English-fluent folk will > > necessarily become a smaller proportion of the programming > > community than we are today. That might be uncomfortable > > for us, but it is a necessary adaptation the community > > needs to undergo. > > Will your heroic crusade to bring equality to the shire also > include Python standard library modules written in languages > other than English? If so, then you'll need to contact > Guido, as PEP8 will require some editing. > > Speaking of GvR... > > And even if you did managed to bring multilingualism to > Python scripts and std-lib modules, wouldn't such > "diversity" be merely symbolic? > > Hmm, because, when we consider the make-up of pydev (aka: > nothing but English speaking dudes) we realize that there > really isn't any diversity at all. At least, not where it > matters. (aka: where the decision are being made) > > Furthermore, if we are to march headlong onto the glorious > battlefields of diversity and equality, for the sake of all > else, then, why should Guido's position be off limits? I > mean, sure, he may a brilliant man. But he's surely not the > most brilliant man on this planet, is he? > > And with that liberating thought in mind, may i offer an > excerpt, for your intellectual consumption, from one of the > most famous documents of all time? > > (emphasis mine) > > "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long > established should not be changed for light and transient > causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that > [humankind] are more disposed to _suffer_ while evils are > _sufferable_, than to right themselves by abolishing the > forms to which they are "accustomed"; but when a ~long~ > train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the > same object, evinces a _design_ to reduce them under > absolute *DESPOTISM* -- It is their *RIGHT*! It is their > *DUTY*! -- to throw off such government and to provide new > guards for their future security" > > ...Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776 > > I'm of the opinion that diversity is fine, so long as you > don't make the fatal mistake of "lopping off your nose to > spite your face". > > Take, for example, the accommodations our societies offer > for handicapped people -- from wheel chair ramps, to > reserved front-row parking spaces, to widened doorways, > etc... -- these accommodations do *NOT*, in any way, > undermine the accessability of healthy people who also utilize > these same public spaces. In fact, the worst consequence of > these accommodations might be that you and i must walk a few > more steps from our car to the market. > > Big deal! > > But what you are suggesting is not so much an > _accommodation_, as it is a fundamental fissure in our > ability to communicate, one that will fracture the community > far more than it is today. It would be as foolish as > mandating that everyone must have their legs lopped-off, so > that all will be "equal". > > Yes, diversity is great! But only when it welcomes outsiders > without undermining the practical cohesiveness of the wider > community. And if the result of your little "inclusivity > project" is merely the replacement of N domestic community > members with N foreign community members, foreigners who's > regional dialects will muck-up the communication process, > then it seems to me that what you have gained is merely a > fulfillment of your _own_ emotional needs, at the expense of > all. > > In conclusion. > > While a wise student of knowledge recognizes that: > > (1) social groups who have waxed into a homogenous block > actually undermine themselves, because they lack the > essential diversity of ideas required to see beyond the > walls of their own "box", and the confirmation bias that > infests such societies, will ensure that such a community is > an evolutionary dead end. > > The same student _also_ recognizes that: > > (2) a society which resembles a jig-saw-puzzle dumped > haphazardly on the floor, lacks the essential _cohesiveness_ > required to maintain a strong sense of _community_, a sense > which allows multiple individuals to work towards a common > goal, in manner this is both practical and efficient. > > Something to think about. > > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
