Martin v. Löwis wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: > >>> Rather, they (like I) will encourage to OP to submit > >>> a patch that fixes the problem. > >> Now, that would be rather silly. I would have to familiarize > >> myself with the code for the Python interpreter, > > > > Seems to me he called the suggestion (made without any > > knowlage of the OP's abilities regarding C and Python's > > internals) that he summit a patch, silly. > > > > I aggree. > > > > His response was well within the bounds of normal > > usenet discourse. > > Maybe I'm unusually picky, but I also feel insulted if > my suggestions are called silly - this is just like calling > myself silly. I rarely make silly suggestions deliberately > (and try to mark them as ironic in usenet if I do); so if > somebody puts them down as "silly", I'll feel insulted. > > I personally don't think it is silly to suggest that an > IT professional becomes familiar with the implementation > of the Python interpreter. That code is well-written, > well-documented, so it should be feasible (rather than > being silly) for anybody with a programming background > and sufficient determination to familiarize with that code.
I think you are vastly overestimating the programming abilities of many Python users. The set of IT professionals includes a large number of people who aren't programmers at all. The set of programmers includes a large number of people who don't know C. Even for someone who knows C, there are many places in the Python code that require considerable general knowlage of Python's overall architecure and way of doing things that is not obtained without a fair bit of time spent working with the code. I think your existing familiarity with it is inteferring with your ability to make an objective judgement of this. To say a Python user should learn C, understand the internals of Python sufficiently to create a patch as a prerequisite to making a suggestion about how to improve the user experience of Python, is, I personally think, silly. > I take the same position for about any open-source software: > you *can* get into Apache, Mozilla, the Linux kernel, > and now the Java virtual machine if you want to. If you > don't, it's not because you can't, but because you don't > want to. That's stretching the meaning of "want to" quite a bit. Theere are lots of constraints on people that prevent even the technically capapable of doing that. You can write them off as not being sufficiently motivated if you want, but I don't think that is being realistic. Nor is it a good reason to disregard ideas for improving Python coming from them. > It would be unrealistic (but not silly) to suggest that > if the source code weren't available at all. It is *not* > silly to suggest that people should make efforts to > contribute to open source software. "Suggestion" covers a wide range of meanings. To politely ask someone to consider submitting a patch if they are able, with no implication of sanction if they are not is one thing. To suggest that any IT professional read and understand Python's internals or be publically castigated is something else. If I had meeting at work, and person X said I think if department Y did things this way, we could save $Z/year. Should I tell that person, "implement it yourself, or be quiet". Sorry, I don't buy that.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
