731–740 of 764 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see violence there.
Violent communication is any kind that may stimulate pain in others. Insults, criticism, and judgment are examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Violent communication is any kind that may stimulate pain in others. Insults, criticism, and judgment are examples.
Then there is no need for communication at all. I mean if you can't even critize ... it reads like some "Safe-Space" BS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The future we were promised" sounds like he's talking more about a combination of ergonomics and productivity that were promised by Lisp but it never got there because the community just didn't expand to the same size. Python is so widely used that the combination of adoption and design decisions is in the sweet spot we were "promised" by Lisp advocates. F# could also play that role since it can access the rest of t…
you can program f# fully as an oop language, where i think it is still more approachable than python for that. add in async, first class events, tasks, observables, etc., and you have a very approachable but high ceiling with f#. and the syntax is still cleaner than python.
> Now that PEP 572 is done, I don't ever want to have to fight so hard for a PEP and find that so many people despise my decisions. PEP 572: Python assignment expressions has been accepted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17448439
Yeesh, that’s a sad thing to burn out over. Python made this decision to avoid assignment expressions a long time ago and has done fine without this capability. Why not just leave well enough alone? Adding a new variation to assignment syntax (just because of the opinion that = vs == is too confusing (even though C and Ruby and many other languages deal with it fine)) is just going to add more confusion to the langua…
(My second gut reaction was it should have used `as NAME` postfix syntax. The PEP debunks that too. Turns out it previously proposed that and the switch to := was a major improvement :-)
The bigger question is whether the gains justify making the language larger... That's subjective, impossible to settle by debate, and the kind of thing a BDFL can help decide one way or the other :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you trust Github to hold your repo, and to implement the mechanics of modifying your repo, but you don't trust them to implement a system of governance over that, then I think you're odd. If Github screws up any of this, you fork to a different location. > BTW, there's nothing wrong with small groups of individuals having power over repos I'm not saying that shouldn't exist. I'm saying that's inappropriate for som…
> If you trust Github to hold your repo, and to implement the mechanics of modifying your repo, but you don't trust them to implement a system of governance over that, then I think you're odd. It's a complete non-sequitur. It's like saying "if you trust water company with delivering your drinking water, you should allow them to raise your children". Keeping bits in place (protected by crypto hashes so any shenanigans…
I don't want the ability to accept a Pull request.
I want three of the five owners of this repo to have to accept it.
I propose that Github automate taking the votes, and taking the action if the vote passes. And preventing the action unless the vote happens.
That way I can trust that nothing happens without the proper procedures.
Your comparison is absurd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then there is no need for communication at all. I mean if you can't even critize ... it reads like some "Safe-Space" BS.
I'm not saying violent communication isn't allowed or is wrong. I'm saying a culture that protects its usage and normalizes it is unsustainable. I prefer to strive toward minimizing its usage and cultivating cultures oriented around everyone's physical, emotional, social, spiritual, and mental well-being. Establishing nonviolent communication as an explicit cultural norm is a step toward that. Same goes for community…
Well, you get physical well-being for free on Internet discussions. For the rest, I don't know. People get triggered over harmless shit so often, I just shake my head for such stupidity. You mentioned spiritual well-being. I contradict and say that if I disrespect your religion (not you as a person) and you get triggered by it (love that word) it's entirely your problem.
But my Internet communication experiences also include games, so these words are not even the worst you could hear. With that in mind, the above pretty much applies all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a little confused though, by his feelings here. Why did he feel the need to "fight so hard for a PEP" if it was so controversial, and everyone was outraged? I do understand people's points about "the age of outrage" and "internet 2018" but still: the PEP wasn't generally accepted as being a fantastic improvement, so why did he feel the need to fight so hard for it?
It was controversial syntax, inline assignment-as-expression. There's always a tension between "keep it simple stupid" and "let's make it better", especially when a large user demographic of Python are non-professional-programmers. Interestingly, C++ is going through the same process, with lots of great ideas being proposed, but the sum total of them being an even more complicated language (on top of what is probably…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name one.
Google replacing python with Go?
Since Google couldn't convince folks to let them make Python faster, they created a NEW language instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
x = stuff while x: x = stuff
On the contrary, loop-and-a-half is intended to avoid repeating stuff outside and inside of the loop body. while true: x = stuff if not x: break
Another motivating code pattern is the "loop and a half".
It was once common for processing a file by line, but that
has been solved by making file objects iterable; however
other non-iterable interfaces still suffer from patterns
like:
line = f.readline()
while line:
... # process line
line = f.readline()
or like this:
while True:
line = f.readline()
if not line:
break
... # process line
Either of those could be replaced with a much more clear
and concise version using an assignment expression:
while line := f.readline():
... # process line