Alex Martelli wrote: > In the general case, it's pretty general;-). In the specific case of > your "question" above quoted (interpreting the mis-spelled words and > grammatical errors to the best of my modest ability), reading it as > rhetorical means it's in fact intended as a statement (that a particular > programming language cannot have high priority for organizations of size > similar to MS's and Google's), and such a statement is incorrect (as I > tried showing with several examples displaying "particular programming > languages" having high strategical priorities for organizations with > many thousands of employees, including one with more personnel [larger > size] than Google's). So exactly how high is python in Google's priority list ? Or in other words, if python is in a stand still as it is now, what would be the impact to Google ? As an outsider, I can only base on public info, like a press release mentioning Guido has been hired.
> > An example of rhetorical question: > "Do you really think that a specific technology [including a software > one, such as a programming language] cannot have, in certain cases, > *extremely high* strategic priority for organizations with thousands of > employees?" > > In this example, the question is phrased to hint at how silly such an > opinion would be, and therefore imply that you can't really think that > (and must have ulterior motives for so suggesting, etc etc). Rhetorical > questions are a perfectly legitimate style of writing (although, like > all stylistic embellishments, they can be overused, and can be made much > less effective if murkily or fuzzily phrased), of course. Surprisingly, I don't see this as an rhetorical question at all. It is quite netural to me as a "I don't agree with you" without indication of silliness, just a style of writing. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
