On 31/10/2022 11.44, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 09:39, dn <pythonl...@danceswithmice.info> wrote:
On 31/10/2022 06.06, Stefan Ram wrote:
Paulo da Silva <p_d_a_s_i_l_v_a...@nonetnoaddress.pt> writes:
Is there anything to do without loosing my script structure and usual
practice?
to lose (losing): to stop having something
to loose (loosing): to let or make loose (see next line)
loose (adj.): not firmly attached/tied/fastened/controlled
to loosen: similar to "to loose"
Hay, your write*!
Well done. There's many a native-speaker who doesn't know the
distinction, or doesn't care about accuracy.
I'm curious to what extent sloppy English correlates with sloppy code.
Do people care about learning proper Python but not about proper
English, or do they think there's no such thing as proper English just
because there's no English Steering Council?
A lot of people seem to treat English the way web browsers treat HTML
- as long as you can make some sense out of it, it's good enough. Some
nerds treat English the way the W3C treats HTML - there actually is a
standard and everything has defined rules. I know which camp I prefer
to communicate with.
There are two distinctions to make: what is "correct", and how correctly
we practice!
Various languages do have a 'standards body', eg French and the group
known as "l'Académie (française)". However, no matter how much they try
to push-back against the encroachment of words from other languages (eg
"le weekend"), even they admit that it is a losing battle (see also:
King Canute).
English is, and has long-been, an "acquisitive language". It takes words
from other languages, often as attempted-homophones, and makes them
"English": verandah, foreign, algebra, ... (and seeing I mentioned
French: "maitre d'" because it makes the restaurant sound 'posh';
champagne because you can then charge more for the bubbles, and
omelet/omelette because I'm feeling hungry...). Indeed yous-Australians
are also manipulators of the language, eg "tradies" for
tradesmen/trades-people (see also: "They're a Weird Mob" - in case you
haven't read that hilarious piece of Aussie Kulcha).
There have been various attempts at standardising English. Indeed for
our Internet-based training courses and courseware, I went looking for
an 'international English'. There is no such thing. The closest is more
to do with accent than text, ie speaking the Queen's/King's English, is
really a euphemism for a (plummy) Oxford accent (or BBC accent - also
fading into the past). A good starting-point:
https://www.cambridge.org/highereducation/books/the-cambridge-encyclopedia-of-the-english-language/2B10AC8766B73D09955C899572C1E7EC#overview
- a tome compiled by a man living in Wales (go figure!).
The earliest attempts would include Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the
English Language (which preceded 'your' Lewis Carroll's playing with
language by about half a century). Around-about one-century after that
came the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), which is the closest thing to
an idea of 'standard spelling'. (and at times differs significantly from
alternate tomes describing American-English).
As for grammar, I must admit deferring (and devolving?) such to style
manuals, such as The Times of London, Strunk and White, etc. (but
perhaps only later and lesser: Kernighan and Plauger's similarly named
"Elements of Programming Style"). In this case, my multi-cultural
education (or lack of application to my school-work?) has caused me many
a stumble. Certainly, I've never taught the subject. Perhaps someone is
better-acquainted with works used by The British Council, et al, in
their English as a Second Language (and related) courses?
The other side of this topic, that of accuracy and precision, involves
aspects which were driven into us at school - that is, those of us with
Optional[grey] hair! These days, teaching good-grammar, spelling, and
so-on, are deemed unnecessarily restrictive, perhaps even cruel, but
certainly far too boring (see also: "joined-up" hand-writing). "Drill"
(aka "deliberate practice") is rarely employed as a teaching/learning
technique in schools. Cue "amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant"
(Latin - although quite why, as six-year olds, the teachers ("Masters")
thought we should be speaking of love escapes me) and "Je suis, tu es,
il est, ..." (French - which always reminds me of Rodin's sculpture and
Descartes exclamation)*
I've even (as an adult) had a (school) Department Head reply to such
criticism with "but you understood me, didn't you?". So, with teachers
like that, the kids are 'on a hiding to nothing'. The prevailing-theory
seems to be that 'you'll pick it up as you go-along'. However, empirical
evidence suggests otherwise. I've even met voracious readers who admit
that their spelling is at the lousy-end of any metric, busting that myth
well-and-truly!
Traditionally 'computer people' have been assumed to need a good
grounding in math[s]. Although, I haven't met anyone recently whose
computing degree includes delving into Numerical Analysis - which
explains the two recent threads (here and/or Tutor) asking why
floating-point numbers are not always accurate/precise. Indeed, it's not
hard to find ComSc graduates who don't know that 1 + 1 = 10 (binary) nor
octal, nor hex[adecimal]...
(cue: (timely) joke about not knowing the difference between Halloween
and Christmas)
There are observations (regret: have failed to lift-out a paper or a
web.ref, but will keep an eye out...) that a better preparation for
programming might well be human-language courses. Even the experience of
grappling with a non-native language, both the learning and the
execution, are readily transferable to computing. Plus, appreciating the
subtleties of language (see elsewhere, list ~= stack) prepares one for
the task of communicating both to human and machine, concurrently!
If not [in the] right, the teacher, mentioned earlier, was correct: I
did understand him. However, even basic communication theory illustrates
that his lack of effort in 'transmitting' required extra effort from the
'receiver'. A computer/compiler will not invest (much) "extra" - despite
the herculean efforts to improve Traceback explanations in recent Python
releases. Many thanks to those involved!). In source-code, precision is
'rewarded'; but lack of precision is quickly and decisively 'punished'.
Doesn't the compiler enforce a discipline upon us? Does that mean that
accepting such discipline is a (necessary) early step towards the
profession? Indeed, perhaps the constant mental struggle against an
implacable machine; which regularly, and almost gleefully, tells us 'you
are wrong'; is a reason why so many leave the profession - frustrated,
angry, disappointed, mentally-exhausted, ego-dented, ...
(sadly, not the only (sensible) reason for leaving!)
Also, programming is something of a team-sport. We regularly come-across
correspondents to this list asking questions without suitable and
sufficient background information. Being able to ask a question and
describe a problem is a skill - as much as describing the solution in
Python. Indeed the famous push-back for such deficit is "Rubber Duck
Problem Solving", and the phenomenon that the process of organising
one's thoughts in order to best express them to another, is likely to
throw-up a/the solution. When that doesn't work, the quality of the
question and its communication will directly affect the (speed and)
quality of an answer - as well as the 'cost' of the distraction to the
'helper'. Our common understanding of the problem domain, is key to
communication. (and a generator of jargon, or extensions to the language!)
When it comes to CVs/resumés (see what I did there?), I must admit that
the most egregious of errors in spelling or grammar do ensure that an
applicant's 'work' is quickly routed to "file 13" (an American-English
term, many other English-speakers will not have heard previously).
IMHO, I prefer someone who'll *do* the work, over someone who'll make me
work. YMMV! Surely someone who mis-types and/or misspells, and has to
'take a second run at it' after Python objects, will take longer to
complete the same task as someone who is accurate and 'gets it right
first-time'?
(indeed, would better construction of that sentence read: "Surely
someone who mis-types and/or misspells, and suffering objections from
Python, has to 'take a second run at it', will take longer...")
Alternately, I'm just an old f...?
* that said, the languages I've learned since-school have all been
through "immersion" in another culture; which I'd suggest is a more
effective method (yet has its own dimension of "cruel"!) - but perhaps
so, only because I had the 'base' (or the tools?) inculcated through my
schooling (such as it was). Contrarily, my (somewhat younger)
brother-in-law never studied languages at school, and struggled (and
suffered) when he went to work in Germany - and was disgusted (envious)
when I arrived and appeared to absorb the language 'by osmosis' (and a
preparedness to make a fool of myself - something also learned at
school, and impressed upon me by the Masters, without any trace of
irony, but sometimes using impress-ively 'heavy weapons'...)
--
Regards,
=dn
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
