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

Groups > comp.lang.python > #55494 > unrolled thread

Re: IDLE: A cornicopia of mediocrity and obfuscation.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: IDLE: A cornicopia of mediocrity and obfuscation. flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> - 2011-02-04 01:55 -0800
    Re: IDLE: A cornicopia of mediocrity and obfuscation. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-02-04 15:01 -0800
      Re: IDLE: A cornicopia of mediocrity and obfuscation. flebber <flebber.crue@gmail.com> - 2011-02-05 01:44 -0800
      Re: IDLE: A cornicopia of mediocrity and obfuscation. Stephen Hansen <me+list/python@ixokai.io> - 2011-02-04 15:24 -0800
    Re: IDLE: A cornicopia of mediocrity and obfuscation. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-02-04 10:34 -0800

#55494 — Re: IDLE: A cornicopia of mediocrity and obfuscation.

On Feb 3, 7:41 am, Corey Richardson <kb1...@aim.com> wrote:
> On 2/2/2011 2:44 PM, rantingrick wrote:

>
> Will you be forking IDLE and setting up some sort of tracker for
> improvements?

+1 for this.

Enough talk ratingrick where is your feature and request tracker for
your idle fork? How can people assist you in your new idle fork
project? What are your stated project goals & timeline?

We all suspect you have no answers to basic questions which would
involve you doing anything!!! So come on rick reply with some other
pius full of shit answer that will absolve you of action and will
still leave you the worlds biggest one handed typist.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#55736

On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Stephen Hansen <me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io> wrote:
> On 2/4/11 10:34 AM, rantingrick wrote:
>
> > But we need to receive the old idlefork or
> > have them delete the old idle fork as too much confusion will spread
> > with when two idleforks exists.
>
> This is nonsense. And probably just another excuse for you to rant
> instead of actually doing something of any use.

Thats a very *ironic* thing to say Stephan!

> IDLEfork was a specific project which ended.

Exactly. The key word here is ENDED! The changes were rolled back into
Pythons stdlib.

> It doesn't need to be
> "taken over" or "deleted" -- it served its purpose and there's nothing
> wrong with its history being preserved.

history translated: old asss shmit

> Your new idea for a project has
> very different aims and a very different agenda from the idlefork that was.

No, both my idea and the old idea was to improve IDLE. What is so
different about that?

> So name your new project something else. reIDLE, maybe. Or unIDLE. Or
> whatever else.

OK, name yourself something else, like naysayer, gossip-hound, or
troll.

> Put your money where your mouth is.

ditto!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55765

On Feb 5, 10:24 am, Stephen Hansen <me+list/pyt...@ixokai.io> wrote:
> On 2/4/11 3:01 PM, rantingrick wrote:
>
> >> Put your money where your mouth is.
>
> > ditto!
>
> I thought as much.
>
> My money is where my mouth is: but that is not IDLE, as I have no use
> for it and no interest in it at all. The status quo with regards to IDLE
> is satisfactory to me.
>
> You're the one talking so much about how it needs to improve. So do it.
> Get started. Now.
>
> But you'll just find another excuse to rant on like you always do, and
> be basically useless.
>
> Me, I _have_ contributed patches: I have released actual code that
> actual people have found actually useful. I do run two build slaves and
> proactively try to assist in resolving issues that come up with Python's
> testing (usually: ouch, there's a lot of red at the moment, must get
> cracking) and stability.
>
> So, yeah. You're the hypocrite here, man.
>
> --
>
>    Stephen Hansen
>    ... Also: Ixokai
>    ... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
>    ... Blog:http://meh.ixokai.io/
>
>  signature.asc
> < 1KViewDownload

Idlefork isn't dead to rick! just pining for the alps!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55821

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2/4/11 3:01 PM, rantingrick wrote:
>> Put your money where your mouth is.
> 
> ditto!

I thought as much.

My money is where my mouth is: but that is not IDLE, as I have no use
for it and no interest in it at all. The status quo with regards to IDLE
is satisfactory to me.

You're the one talking so much about how it needs to improve. So do it.
Get started. Now.

But you'll just find another excuse to rant on like you always do, and
be basically useless.

Me, I _have_ contributed patches: I have released actual code that
actual people have found actually useful. I do run two build slaves and
proactively try to assist in resolving issues that come up with Python's
testing (usually: ouch, there's a lot of red at the moment, must get
cracking) and stability.

So, yeah. You're the hypocrite here, man.

-- 

   Stephen Hansen
   ... Also: Ixokai
   ... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
   ... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55940

On Feb 4, 3:55 am, flebber <flebber.c...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Enough talk ratingrick where is your feature and request tracker for
> your idle fork? How can people assist you in your new idle fork
> project? What are your stated project goals & timeline?

I am ready flebber but we have a problem. An old IDLE fork project
still exists and if i start a new one then folks will probably get
confused. We don't need more multiplicity.

So, I am asking now that the owners of IDLE fork step forth and offer
the site to me or someone who would be interested in restarting the
fork with new goals of cleaning up the horrible code base and ambition
to maybe do more. We don't want to bloat IDLE but we do want to clean
it up.

I don't care who *that* person is as long as *they* are willing to
push IDLE forward. I would be honored to accept the reigns and lead OR
follow someone else's lead. But we need to receive the old idlefork or
have them delete the old idle fork as too much confusion will spread
with when two idleforks exists.

Here is a link to the old idle fork:

    http://idlefork.sourceforge.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web