Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: WP-A: A New URL Shortener
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:48:18 +1100
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <mailman.173.1458086021.12893.python-list@python.org>
References: <mailman.168.1458075301.12893.python-list@python.org> <17785955.P1rOlOtRcj@PointedEars.de> <CAPTjJmr_Fe9dr64GToZv=5unh01YJySZMsgs5Y+QK1winzspwg@mail.gmail.com> <56E89D6B.7070705@lucidity.plus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
In-Reply-To: <56E89D6B.7070705@lucidity.plus.com>
Precedence: list
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:104968

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Erik <python@lucidity.plus.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 15/03/16 23:16, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> So URL shorteners are invaluable tools.
>
>
> Perhaps, and in the specific - transient - use-cases you describe that's
> fine. The problem I have with them is that they are a level of indirection
> controlled by a third party. If the source (let's say this list) has a
> message containing a link to something on the target which is still
> available via a "shortened" URL, then if the shortening service goes
> offline, the link is dead. Even though the target is still there.
>
> People complain about the use of pastebin in this list for showing code
> fragments. It's the same thing - one URL shortening (indirection) service
> goes offline and a ton of links are suddenly silenced. It's like a
> disturbance in the force ;)

I agree, it's a risk. Any indirection adds that. So the benefit has to
be weighed against this inherent cost.

> FWIW, I also have an issue with services that convert your ASCII text into
> unicode such that the resulting glyphs are still things a human reader will
> understand as substitutes for the original text but which can't be easily
> searched/grepped.

Oh, I totally agree. Your text should be your text.

>> However, I'm not sure what
>> this one is that others aren't.
>
>
> Vinicius didn't say his code was anything different.
>
> He said he _WANTED_ to do something different _BUT_ realised ideas are hard
> to come by, _SO_ he developed some URL-shortening software and then shared
> it.

Yeah, but there's usually _something_ different :)

> I see it as a learning exercise on his part, and that's great.

Absolutely. As such, it's excellent. I often like to make a small
change when I reimplement, though - something that I thought was
ill-designed in the original, or maybe just a simple thing of
integration somewhere (eg a little text editor embedded in a larger
program).

ChrisA