On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 at 05:42, Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> wrote: > > Obviously sometimes it's unavoidable, but I don't think we can > > genuinely accept that the redundancy is *good*. > > You have convinced me! I'm now removing all my RAID devices! > > *wink* > > Would it have helped if I had said redundancy is *sometimes* good? >
*facepalm* Would it have helped if I had said that the redundancy *here* is not good? You gain nothing whatsoever, other than "oh hey, you said this twice and said the same thing" - in other words, the ONLY thing you gain here is the possibility for it to be wrong. All your other examples are places where that redundancy is either fully automated (RAID does not require that you, as the user, save multiple copies of things and keep them synchronized), or not fundamentally redundant (assertions are a form of executable comment, and if the assertions are simply repeating the code around them, they are utterly useless). x = 1 assert x == 1 # ensure that x is 1 What do we gain here? How is redundancy fundamentally good, when all it does is introduce the possibility of error? ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/IAVWRR6GPXAWBC726UPKEZVVZHS3G662/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
