X-Received: by 10.66.224.73 with SMTP id ra9mr20258836pac.9.1431361070868; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:17:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.73.130 with SMTP id l2mr58617obv.6.1431361070828; Mon, 11 May 2015 09:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!m20no1987268iga.0!news-out.google.com!n7ni30745igk.0!nntp.google.com!m20no1987266iga.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 09:17:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5550ce68$0$12990$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.39.100.167; posting-account=_mq9AwoAAADE_DU6vx1SR9Jw8c-yNCiv NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.39.100.167 References: <554F9525.5040101@digipen.edu> <5550815E.5080600@rece.vub.ac.be> <87fv73iavz.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <5550ce68$0$12990$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: anomaly From: zipher Injection-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:17:50 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:90409 On Monday, May 11, 2015 at 10:44:51 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 11 May 2015 11:27 pm, Antoon Pardon wrote: >=20 > > The point is that all too often someone wants to defend a specific choi= ce > > the developers have made and cites some general rule or principle in > > support, ignoring the fact that python breaks that rule/principle in ot= her > > area's. >=20 > "It's a free country, you can do what you like." >=20 > "No I can't, I'm not allowed to kill people." >=20 > Just because there are exceptions to a rule doesn't mean it isn't a gener= al > rule. A few exceptions are just exceptions, they don't invalidate the fac= t > that "consenting adults" is a basic design principle of Python. The solution to this is to find an overarching maxim that encompasses both.= This was already solved (in your example) with the Age they called the En= lightenment (and perhaps arguably with Kant). The solution was that your l= iberty extends to the point another's begins -- a more scalable maxim than = "freedom". With OOP, the solution is not to slide by having sloppy design goals, it's = to find a noble purpose. OOP by itself has no goal other than to try to ma= ke a system of re-usable objects. By itself it's like having a bow and arr= ow with no target. I'm suggesting there's a target: a data ecosystem for = the exabytes of data that exists with the Internet -- not simulating graphi= cal objects on the screen or trying to re-make the real-world in the virtua= l world. These are missteps that perhaps can be explored in languages spe= cially tailored for it (Simula, POV-ray, Erlang, etc.). Mark