Python programming is drowning in red tape

I've worked on multi-million line dynamic codebases in settings that require robustness and correctness (telecommunications/Erlang) and it's an absolute ridiculous idea that one needs type checking to build industry standard codebases and architecture.

The Java/C++ paradigm is not the only software paradigm to built correct software.

I don't get many of these points. For example, at the company I'm about to leave, we worked just fine both manually versioning as well as using tools like versioneer/setuptools_scm.

We made it easy to fire up new projects using a dual template/boilerplate repo strategy. Infrastructure like this is in a boilerplate repo and almost entirely setup for new projects from the start. New projects fork a template project and do a small number of basic steps (like naming the project, etc.). Both the template and project repos are update from the boilerplate Git repo as we make updates to the infrastructure--a simple Git remote setup.

But that's of course a bikeshed.

At any rate, if black's formatting does break PEP8 (as a downthread commenter rebuts), I would think it's weird that black doesn't have a --pep8-correct flag or something for people who do want PEP-compliant stuff. Certainly black can go its own way, but if people are going to consider it "the blessed python code formatter", it should have a mode that actually conforms to the python standard for formatting.

But hey, ultimately it's the black maintainer's choice.

If by "argument" you mean "flame-war", then I suppose I'm right there with you. I've seen many, but participated in zero.

Still, I think I've observed some regularities. One such regularity is that flame-wars and CoC-trolling almost always take place in communities that treat their CoCs as some sort of constitution, and believe these conflicts should be resolved in a simili-court-of-law.

This is why I continue to oppose CoCs on the grounds that they're ideological tools, in practice. In my estimation, the whole point of pushing CoCs on open source projects is to get them to think in terms of legal process, at which point they can be harassed into behaving a certain way. This is all done on the false premise that internet communities should be run like first-world democracies.

>Even I have seen the "you handled this one way last month, why are you treating this guy differently today?" arguments.

>I imagine if you're willing to discuss your decisions at all, you're going to be forced to argue technicalities.

That's the brilliant thing - you're not forced to argue technicalities. In fact, you're not forced to give any explanation (though that's rarely the best policy, in practice). This isn't a court of law.

Anyway this is just ... like ... my opinion, man. Others can disagree with me and still be reasonable. As I said in another comment, I don't run any popular OSS communities, but if I do, I don't think I'll use a CoC. And I don't think that will prevent me from enforcing good behavior.

(P.S.: I've just reread this comment and it struck me as a bit abrasive and argumentative. I've made a few changes, but please be assured of my courteous intent!)