Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Gregory Ewing]

Chris Angelico wrote:

And it's illogical to say "Windows is feeling cranky today" when
something inexplicably fails.


Everyone understands that to be a tongue-in-cheek
metaphor for "Windows is misbehaving in unfathomable
ways", and not "the people who wrote Windows were
feeling cranky when they did it".

But ideas are not software -- they don't actively
*do* anything, so trying to anthropomorphise them
doesn't really work. It's hard not to read "this
idea is arrogant" as an implied criticism of the
person putting forward the idea, even if it wasn't
meant that way.

There are plenty of good ways of criticising an
idea that are clearly about the idea itself, so there
is no need to resort to adjectives that could be
misunderstood as veiled ad-hominem attacks.

--
Greg
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Paul Moore]

On 9 November 2017 at 05:08, Ben Finney  wrote:
> Marko Rauhamaa  writes:
>
>> Jon Ribbens :
>> > It is my experience of this group/list that if one disagrees with any
>> > of you, Steve and Chris, you all rally round and gang up on that
>> > person to insult and belittle them. This makes the atmosphere quite
>> > hostile, and it would be quite remarkable if it isn't hurting the
>> > community by driving people away. Please stop doing it.
>>
>> This forum is about a dead thing, a programming language. I wouldn't
>> make too big a deal about "the community."
>
> On the contrary, this forum is about a *community of people*, formed
> around a programming language.
>
> The community is primary here, I am in full agreement with Jon on that.

100% agreed.

And on that note, shouldn't participants on this list follow the
Python code of conduct[1]? Specifically, I don't see a lot of
adherence to the mandate to be "tactful when approaching differing
views" in this debate :-(

Tact isn't about explaining how what *you* said shouldn't be taken the
way the other person appears to be taking it. It's about accepting
that the other person took your words in a particular way, and
acknowledging and dealing with the fact that their interpretation is
real to them, and should not be dismissed as "mistaken".

Paul

[1] https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/

PS I won't respond to any explanations of how what I'm saying here is
incorrect, or misguided. I don't want to further fan the flames.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: import issues python3.4

[lingmaaki]

Python Tutorial

http://net-informations.com/python/default.htm
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: converting numbers into words (Posting On Python-List Prohibited)

[John Ladasky]

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:40:18 PM UTC-8, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 7:51:35 PM UTC+13, r16...@rguktrkv.ac.in 
> wrote:
> 
> > How can I covert numbers into word like ex:-123 One hundred twenty three?
> 
> Here’s  one I 
> did earlier, in Algol 68.
> 
> Conversion to Python is left as an exercise for the reader.

I think that gives away rather more than I wanted the student to see.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Marko Rauhamaa]

Gregory Ewing :
> There are plenty of good ways of criticising an idea that are clearly
> about the idea itself, so there is no need to resort to adjectives
> that could be misunderstood as veiled ad-hominem attacks.

I disagree. Ad hominems are needed when you run out of reasoned
arguments but feel the need to defend the honor of your dear programming
language.


Marko
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 11/08/2017 08:18 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ned Batchelder  writes:
> [...]
>> Second, now you want us to agree that calling someone arrogant isn't
>> an attack?
> 
> It's one thing to say “this idea is arrogant”, which is what Steve did.
> That's not in any way personal, nor an attack on a person. It criticises
> an idea.
> 
> If instead Steve said “that was an arrogant action”, the person is being
> criticised. But it's still not *characterising* the person; it
> characterises the action. It says nothing about whether the person is
> arrogant.
> 
> If instead of either of those Steve said “you are arrogant”, that would
> warrant the response, in my estimation.
> 
> That it got nowhere near that is why I'm pleading that we stop treating
> criticism of ideas as though it were an attack on a person.

People and their ideas are not separable.  The ideas that
people have and promote are part of what makes them who
they are.  You cannot criticize their ideas without criticizing 
them.  That you make up some pet theory about how people 
*should* be does not change the reality of how people *are*.

And when you apply anthropocentric terms to "an idea" (which 
obviously does not have "behavior" of it's own, the attempts 
of you and Chris to make that claim not withstanding) you 
reinforce the sense that you are talking about the person.
If I said, "that's an idea that an asshole would think up",
there is no one (other than perhaps you and Chris) who wouldn't
recognize that I was calling you an asshole. 

Conversely, while you claim any incivility is allowable 
when criticizing an idea you claim there's a requirement 
to respect a person.  Do you respect the terrorist who 
killed the hostages in Sydney a couple years ago? Or any 
number of other lowlifes?  Or maybe you'll now waffle about 
and limit respect to speech?  Suppose I came here and start
spouting neo-Nazi racist rants.  Do you seriously claim
people should criticize my ideas but not me?  That's so far 
from recognized human behavior that it justifies being called 
a crackpot theory.

If you want to show respect to people whose ideas you disagree 
with or even disrespect you do so by leaving out the insults, 
the innuendos, the aggressive language, completely subjective 
and unprovable non-facts like "arrogant" and "stupid", and just 
make a rational case why the other person is wrong in your 
opinion.  That also shows respect to other readers most of 
whom I bet dont want to read the constant verbal dueling that 
occurs so regularly here.

Nobody is saying not to criticize: it is how it is done that
is the problem.

But of course that is nowhere near as much fun, is it?
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: converting numbers into words

[bartc]

On 09/11/2017 06:51, r161...@rguktrkv.ac.in wrote:

How can I covert numbers into word like ex:-123 One hundred twenty three?



google for something like "algorithm numbers to words".

If this is homework, then it's not cheating as everyone else will be 
doing the same.


> How can I covert numbers into word like ex:-123 One hundred twenty three?

And you need to refine your specification of the task. I would render 
your example as:


 minus one hundred and twenty-three




--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: converting numbers into words (Posting On Python-List Prohibited)

[Christopher Reimer]

On Nov 9, 2017, at 3:45 AM, John Ladasky  wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:40:18 PM UTC-8, Lawrence D’Oliveiro 
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 7:51:35 PM UTC+13, r16...@rguktrkv.ac.in 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> How can I covert numbers into word like ex:-123 One hundred twenty three?
>> 
>> Here’s  one I 
>> did earlier, in Algol 68.
>> 
>> Conversion to Python is left as an exercise for the reader.
> 
> I think that gives away rather more than I wanted the student to see.
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

I thought the classic homework problem was to convert an Arabic numeral into a 
Roman numeral. Bonus points for correctly converting any number above 12 and/or 
copyright year from any old movie. Most students have seen Roman numerals on 
clocks (1-12).

Maybe that's too hard for today's kids with digital clocks.

Chris R.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...]
> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
> (possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
> to clearing this up.
> ChrisA

Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
towards a poster you disagreed with:

 "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]

Maybe you could set an example for Steve?  It would go a long way 
to showing that you, Steven, Ben an a few others aren't setting a duel
standard where favored regular "alpha male" posters can be as rude as
they want but the Code of Conduct is dragged out to whack non-alphas 
when they respond the same way.

[*] https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-October/727190.html
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
 wrote:
> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> [...]
>> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
>> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
>> (possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
>> to clearing this up.
>> ChrisA
>
> Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
> towards a poster you disagreed with:
>
>  "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]

If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed with the person.

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[bartc]

On 09/11/2017 16:33, Chris Angelico wrote:

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
 wrote:

On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:

[...]
Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
(possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
to clearing this up.
ChrisA


Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
towards a poster you disagreed with:

  "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]


If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed with the person.


Such as?


--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:00 AM, bartc  wrote:
> On 09/11/2017 16:33, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:

 [...]
 Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
 to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
 (possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
 to clearing this up.
 ChrisA
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
>>> towards a poster you disagreed with:
>>>
>>>   "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]
>>
>>
>> If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed with the
>> person.
>
>
> Such as?
>

I don't know. Why don't you go read the thread?

ChrisA
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: converting numbers into words

[Grant Edwards]

On 2017-11-09, r161...@rguktrkv.ac.in  wrote:

> How can I covert numbers into word like ex:-123 One hundred twenty three?

That's one of the classic freshman intro-to-programming homework
problems.  I remember having to write a Pascal program to do that back
in the 70's...

-- 
Grant Edwards   grant.b.edwardsYow! Are we laid back yet?
  at   
  gmail.com

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[bartc]

On 09/11/2017 17:04, Chris Angelico wrote:

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 4:00 AM, bartc  wrote:

On 09/11/2017 16:33, Chris Angelico wrote:


On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
 wrote:


On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:


[...]
Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
(possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
to clearing this up.
ChrisA



Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
towards a poster you disagreed with:

   "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]



If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed with the
person.



Such as?



I don't know. Why don't you go read the thread?


I did. You seemed to have disagreed very strongly with someone else's 
opinions. The context was a set of UI annoyances of BC:


BC:
>> There are dozens more, yet you are surprised why sometimes I prefer 
doing

>> things my own way? There are good reasons!

CA:
> Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron. You assume that since
> *you* have never needed to produce one lower-case letter in a block of
> upper-case, that "probably no one else has", and then you make it
> impossible to do that in your editor. I have wanted to produce a
> lower-case letter by holding Shift. I have also used this behaviour to
> detect and recognize faults of various sorts. Do you understand the
> concept of debugging a system by getting more information, not less?

(Thread "The loop and a half", around 19:10 UK time 8/10/17.)

--
bartc
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Michael Torrie]

On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
>  wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
>>> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
>>> (possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
>>> to clearing this up.
>>> ChrisA
>>
>> Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
>> towards a poster you disagreed with:
>>
>>  "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]
> 
> If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed with the person.

But how does that justify the comment? Sounds like a rationalization to
me. A little humility on all our parts goes a long ways.  One can
apologize for offense taken, even if none was intended, and even if my
own opinion is still strongly held.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Rhodri James]

On 09/11/17 17:41, Michael Torrie wrote:

On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list
 wrote:

On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:

[...]
Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
(possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
to clearing this up.
ChrisA


Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
towards a poster you disagreed with:

  "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]


If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed with the person.


But how does that justify the comment? Sounds like a rationalization to
me. A little humility on all our parts goes a long ways.  One can
apologize for offense taken, even if none was intended, and even if my
own opinion is still strongly held.


But some people really do behave moronically on this list.  I generally 
killfile them before the urge to insult gets too strong, but I do see 
Chris's point; leaving people with the idea that unacceptable behaviour 
is acceptable is a service to no one.


--
Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list 
>  wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately trying
>>> to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your position on this
>>> (possibly worded in the form of an apology?), it would go a long way
>>> to clearing this up.
>>> ChrisA
>>
>> Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a month ago
>> towards a poster you disagreed with:
>>
>>  "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]
> 
> If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed with the person.

"If"?  You are not sure?  I included a link to your message
in my post which you seem to have cut.  Here it is again:
   https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2017-October/727190.html
If it is a forgery, maybe the moderators can remove it.  But 
unless you want to categorically deny you wrote it, I think we 
can assume that you did.

I stand by what I've claimed on several occasions: that offensive 
(and CoC violating) posts such as your's and Steven's are regularly 
posted by a handful of regulars here, and not only are there  
typically no objections but other members of the cabal actually 
jump in to defend the bad behavior.
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[ROGER GRAYDON CHRISTMAN]

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017, Gregory Ewing wrote:>
But ideas are not software -- they don't actively
>*do* anything, so trying to anthropomorphise them
>doesn't really work. 


Generally true.   I just remember the notable exception:

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

That case of anthropomorphism works just as well as it was intended.

As far as this whole thing about criticism being taken personally,
I just can't get a certain sketch out of my head:

".. but I came here for an argument!"
"Oh, oh!  I'm sorry!  This is abuse!... You want room 12A next door."

It is hard to tell the difference sometimes.

But on this count, I would still try to find the distinction about
whether a particular idea seems to ridiculous, or arrogant, as
an anomalous statement from the presenter vs. it being 
representative of a regular pattern.   I think many of the posters
here appear commonly enough to place the spirit of a particular
post in the context of their general presentation style.

Roger Christman
Pennsylvania State University
On Thu, Nov  9, 2017, Gregory Ewing wrote:But ideas are not software -- they
don't actively
*do* anything, so trying to anthropomorphise them
doesn't really work. 
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Rurpy via Python-list]

On 11/09/2017 10:51 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
> On 09/11/17 17:41, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> On 11/09/2017 09:33 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM, Rurpy via Python-list 
>>>  wrote:
 On 11/08/2017 11:29 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...] Please, Jon, accept that we were not deliberately
> trying to put you down. Steve, if you can clearly state your
> position on this (possibly worded in the form of an
> apology?), it would go a long way to clearing this up. 
> ChrisA
 
 Are you the same ChrisA who wrote in this very list just a
 month ago towards a poster you disagreed with:
 
 "Yep. Good reasons like that you're a moron." [*]
>>> 
>>> If I said that, there's more to it than just that I disagreed
>>> with the person.
>> 
>> But how does that justify the comment? Sounds like a
>> rationalization to me. A little humility on all our parts goes a
>> long ways.  One can apologize for offense taken, even if none was
>> intended, and even if my own opinion is still strongly held.
> 
> But some people really do behave moronically on this list.  I
> generally killfile them before the urge to insult gets too strong,
> but I do see Chris's point; leaving people with the idea that
> unacceptable behaviour is acceptable is a service to no one.

"unacceptable behavior" being having an opinion different than 
Chris'?  And a response of "you're a moron" is quite acceptable 
in your opinion?  You are obviously not alone in feeling that way 
but if that is the defacto policy here then the CoC should be 
changed to reflect that.  
-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Ideas about how software should behave

[Ben Finney]

Paul Moore  writes:

> And on that note, shouldn't participants on this list follow the
> Python code of conduct[1]? Specifically, I don't see a lot of
> adherence to the mandate to be "tactful when approaching differing
> views" in this debate :-(

Yes, we should all adhere to the forum's Code of Conduct. Where I've not
done that – and certainly it happens often enough – I want to know, and
to work harder to live up to it, without compromising the critical
examination of ideas expressed.

> Tact isn't about explaining how what *you* said shouldn't be taken the
> way the other person appears to be taking it. It's about accepting
> that the other person took your words in a particular way, and
> acknowledging and dealing with the fact that their interpretation is
> real to them, and should not be dismissed as "mistaken".

I accept all of that, and I do think tact is too often in short supply.

-- 
 \  “Begin with false premises and you risk reaching false |
  `\   conclusions. Begin with falsified premises and you forfeit your |
_o__)  authority.” —Kathryn Schulz, 2015-10-19 |
Ben Finney

-- 
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list