Python 3 put-downs: What's the point?

[Terry Reedy]

 

[CM]

I think there's a good point to Python 3 put-downs (if I take put-down
to mean generally reasonable criticism, which is what I've read here
recently, and not trolling). And that is simply to register
dissent.

Any online group is an opportunity to register dissent in a way that
is public, open, immediate, interactive, and will (probably) be
preserved for historians to check. The fact is, some people have
gripes with Python 3; they are letting it be known. If no one did,
there could be no later time at which people could look back and know
what the reaction was to its introduction--it would just be a blank.
Aren't opinions that dissent from the prevailing ones important to
register, whether one thinks they are right or wrong?

Che

 

[Antoine Pitrou]

Any online group is an opportunity to register dissent in a way that
is public, open, immediate, interactive, and will (probably) be
preserved for historians to check. The fact is, some people have
gripes with Python 3; they are letting it be known. If no one did,
there could be no later time at which people could look back and know
what the reaction was to its introduction--it would just be a blank.
Aren't opinions that dissent from the prevailing ones important to
register, whether one thinks they are right or wrong?

Sure. As long as you don't record the same dissent from the same person
ten times in a row. Then it becomes trolling.

 

[Terry Reedy]

I think there's a good point to Python 3 put-downs (if I take put-down
to mean generally reasonable criticism, which is what I've read here
recently, and not trolling). And that is simply to register
dissent.

But dissent from what?

Dissent from something obviously true?
(like 'Pythonx.y is useful to some people')

Dissent from something obvious false, that no one has said?
(like 'Everyone should switch to Pythonx.y')

Any online group is an opportunity to register dissent in a way that
is public, open, immediate, interactive, and will (probably) be
preserved for historians to check. The fact is, some people have
gripes with Python 3; they are letting it be known.

I have several 'gripes' with 2.7 and it is currently useless to me.
Should I let them be known? How many times?

If no one did,
there could be no later time at which people could look back and know
what the reaction was to its introduction--it would just be a blank.
Aren't opinions that dissent from the prevailing ones important to
register, whether one thinks they are right or wrong?

Do you agree with me that the same criteria for gripe legitimacy should
be applied equally to all Python versions (even if we should disagree on
what those criteria should be)?

 

[CM]

But dissent from what?

Dissent from something obviously true?
(like 'Pythonx.y is useful to some people')

Dissent from something obvious false, that no one has said?
(like 'Everyone should switch to Pythonx.y')

I was thinking more like dissent from something that is not obviously
true or false, but a matter of debate, like some of the decisions
behind Python 3 itself or how the transition is being managed. I got
the sense that was about where the complaints lie. Some of the
responses to those complaints were educational to me, so I didn't mind
reading the exchanges.

I have several 'gripes' with 2.7 and it is currently useless to me.
Should I let them be known? How many times?

Maybe you should; maybe it can be constructive criticism to developers
or can jog someone to tell you something that you didn't know. How
many times? Once, maybe twice. I agree one can overdo it, and maybe
you've read more of the gripes than I have and it seems repetitive by
now.

Do you agree with me that the same criteria for gripe legitimacy should
be applied equally to all Python versions (even if we should disagree on
what those criteria should be)?

I think so, sure.