> Someone can really like a languages, but not agree with all the language designer's choices.
Yes, of course.
When writing about `+`, Guido might have chosen to gently chide himself for deciding to break the very first principle he wrote about in his article.
Instead he arbitrarily focused on a couple later principles he didn't break -- and then rudely dissed Perl which deliberately did not break any of the principles he listed in his article.
I really like Python but I do not agree with all Guido's choices in human language and that inappropriate cheap shot at Perl was an example.
> A language designer needs to make tradeoffs
Yes, of course.
As I wrote, Guido chose to write "The template is what it is. Deal with it." in response to someone with poor eyesight requesting he make a one line change.
Twitter is a constrained medium so he presumably felt he needed to tradeoff civility for making his point clear. But:
> I hope we can agree that not every choice needs to be universally accepted. Tolerance != uniformity and bind acceptance.
That was the point of my first reply to you.
I was curious to see if you would agree that Guido's decision to be rude toward Perl in the very context in which he'd just described a flaw in Python according to his own stated principles did not warrant the essentially universal acceptance it got in the reddit python thread.
And, likewise, his rudely dismissive twitter response to a random innocent person reading his article which received far more hearts than those sympathizing with the tweeter with less than perfect eyesight.
> Beyond that: I'm very familiar with Perl 5, Perl 6, and the direction the community is taking the languages, and the Perl culture. I just disagree with some of the language choices.
To recap, I wasn't speaking about disagreement. And not really about Perl either. I was speaking of agreement with Guido's rudeness.
> Someone can really like a languages, but not agree with all the language designer's choices.
Yes, of course.
When writing about `+`, Guido might have chosen to gently chide himself for deciding to break the very first principle he wrote about in his article.
Instead he arbitrarily focused on a couple later principles he didn't break -- and then rudely dissed Perl which deliberately did not break any of the principles he listed in his article.
I really like Python but I do not agree with all Guido's choices in human language and that inappropriate cheap shot at Perl was an example.
> A language designer needs to make tradeoffs
Yes, of course.
As I wrote, Guido chose to write "The template is what it is. Deal with it." in response to someone with poor eyesight requesting he make a one line change.
Twitter is a constrained medium so he presumably felt he needed to tradeoff civility for making his point clear. But:
> I hope we can agree that not every choice needs to be universally accepted. Tolerance != uniformity and bind acceptance.
That was the point of my first reply to you.
I was curious to see if you would agree that Guido's decision to be rude toward Perl in the very context in which he'd just described a flaw in Python according to his own stated principles did not warrant the essentially universal acceptance it got in the reddit python thread.
And, likewise, his rudely dismissive twitter response to a random innocent person reading his article which received far more hearts than those sympathizing with the tweeter with less than perfect eyesight.
> Beyond that: I'm very familiar with Perl 5, Perl 6, and the direction the community is taking the languages, and the Perl culture. I just disagree with some of the language choices.
To recap, I wasn't speaking about disagreement. And not really about Perl either. I was speaking of agreement with Guido's rudeness.