Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #58145

Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/29/2013 12:22 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM,  <rurpy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge
>> it has useful advice, I have always found it elitist and
>> abrasive.  I wish someone would rewrite it without the
>> "we are gods" attitude.
> 
> I find it actually pretty appropriate. The attitude comes from a
> hierarchy in which we are not at the top - but neither is esr. On the
> roleplaying game Threshold, there's a help file about that, which
> succinctly sums up what I'm trying to say, but it doesn't seem to be
> on the web, so unless you want to telnet to thresholdrpg.com, create
> an account, and type "help hierarchy" at the prompt, you can't see the
> text of it. Oh well. :| Anyway, point is: We're in a hierarchy (or
> actually several independent and unrelated ones), and being at the top
> means (in the open source world) being everyone's servant; and the
> people at the top simply don't have time to be _everyone's_ servant
> personally, so they need some sous-servants to help them to help
> people. (Obvious example of that in the Python community is Guido at
> the top, other core committers and PEP writers and so on helping him,
> and then the large crew of core question-answerers, bug triagers,
> patch writers, etc, etc, etc.) You offer courtesy to those who are
> above you; they're giving of their time freely, making themselves your
> servants, and all they ask is that you make it easy for them to do so.
> That's a pretty good deal for all of us at the bottom of the hierarchy

This is a matter of philosophy and opinion so it is way
off-topic and not something I want to continue discussing
but...

One doesn't offer courtesy in return for free software, 
one offers courtesy because the other person is a human 
being and with courtesy is how you'd like him to treat 
you.  But in the open software world we're often not 
talking about demands for courtesy so much as for 
deference.

The reasonable quid-pro-quo in open software is that 
developers get enjoyment of producing good stuff, voluntary
respect and thanks, free feedback, bug reporting, patches.  
Users get good free software.  There is no need for more 
than that.

Your hierarchy is particularly unappealing to me.  We all
know that such hierarchies exist in the real world, but 
there is a question: should they be promoted as a natural 
and desirable state of society to be encouraged?

There are people like Ayn Rand who have argued they are 
natural and should be encouraged.  But I, having grown 
up with the concepts of democracy, egalitarianism, and 
individualism in which treatment I ask for I should also 
extend to you, don't accept those views.  In fact I 
think they have a somewhat fascist odor.  I don't wish
to participate in a culture or sub-culture in which such 
"worth" hierarchies are promoted.

Finally, your choice of a game based on feudal medieval
standards of behavior and morality to explain your view 
does not help your argument IMO.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:36 +0200
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-17 01:44 +0200
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-17 10:47 +1100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-17 09:06 +0000
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 16:53 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Skip Montanaro <skip.montanaro@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 19:39 -0500
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:41 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:40 +0100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-18 18:44 +1100
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 09:11 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-21 14:19 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-10-22 03:34 +0000
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-17 17:43 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-18 08:42 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-21 22:35 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-23 15:13 +0200
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-24 22:02 +0200
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 15:13 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 10:58 +0100
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-10-28 11:49 +0100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-10-29 12:37 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-29 14:08 +0000
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-29 13:00 -0700
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-30 10:22 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:48 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-31 08:41 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-31 21:41 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 05:41 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:50 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-02 03:52 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:46 -0800
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Joshua Landau <joshua@landau.ws> - 2013-11-02 18:22 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-03 05:17 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 10:45 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-03 09:50 -0800
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-03 19:49 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 09:11 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 09:38 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-11-04 20:07 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-04 10:38 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-11-02 18:36 +0000
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-01 13:50 +0100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-11-01 18:51 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Antoon Pardon <antoon.pardon@rece.vub.ac.be> - 2013-11-02 12:15 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:53 +0100
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Skybuck Flying" <Windows7IsOK@DreamPC2006.com> - 2013-11-02 20:49 +0100
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-03 15:17 +1100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "wolfgang kern" <nowhere@never.at> - 2013-10-29 19:08 +0100
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Bernhard Schornak <schornak@web.de> - 2013-11-01 00:44 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-25 11:57 -0700
    Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 16:05 -0400
      Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-25 16:44 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 01:19 +0100
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:58 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-10-26 16:38 +0100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:36 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 11:25 +1100
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 07:55 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-10-25 20:35 -0400
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:00 -0700
        Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 02:40 +0000
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 05:15 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2013-10-27 00:02 +1100
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:07 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:25 +1100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:43 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 08:05 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-10-26 17:24 +0000
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:33 -0700
            Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 09:15 +1100
              Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 21:45 -0700
          Re: Don't use default Google Group client (was re:....) Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-28 14:23 +0000
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2013-10-25 22:09 +0100
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 13:37 -0700
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 18:45 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 12:56 +1100
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:29 -0700
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-26 22:04 -0700
        Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 00:59 -0700
          Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-27 22:40 -0700
            Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 22:56 -0700
              Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 23:51 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-28 21:03 -0700
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-10-29 17:22 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rurpy@yahoo.com - 2013-10-30 19:53 -0700
                OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-11-01 07:00 +0000
                Re: OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-11-01 19:19 +1100
                Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-29 08:45 -0400
      Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-10-27 12:10 -0400
    Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-10-27 03:53 -0700
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-10-26 19:02 -0700
  Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea. Peter Cacioppi <peter.cacioppi@gmail.com> - 2013-11-02 12:40 -0700

csiph-web