Re: Clause "with and use"

["Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0311152301.33340240@posting.google.com...
> "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bp6neb$1eo$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bebbba07.0311151412.6bf52757@posting.google.com...
>
> On this post I would agree that you have. However, your previous post
> was more than a little patronizing. I think you will find that most
> people naturally resent being patronized and lectured to. Then again,
> maybe I deserved it. On the other hand, I think there's a tendency
> here to mistake impassioned debate with a personal attack.

True, it is difficult to gauge how people will read what you write.

> In any case, I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this
> one, because I simply cannot agree with your position. As I wrote
> before, Python has
>
>    import math # equivalent to Ada "with"
>
> and
>
>    from math import * # equivalent to Ada "use"
>
> and you do not need to precede the latter with the former. The latter
> stands alone perfectly well. As far as I know, this has never been
> called "inconsistent" or considered even a minor issue in the Python
> community. It's a complete non-issue, and I'll bet that if I clained
> on comp.lang.python that this is somehow inconsistent or error prone,
> people there would consider me a nut case.

Yes, this is a case were we need to step back from the argument and let a
little time pass so that we can gather more experience.

> Yes, I realize that Ada is not Python, and Ada is intended for safety
> critical code and Python is not. However, the safety of Ada does not
> come from redundant "with" and "use". Purists who think otherwise
> remind me of military purists.

And here is the irony.  I am not a language purist. ;-)  I usually try to
seek optimal configurations (I think you see yourself in this way, too;
hence, the irony).  This is why I like Ada; it feels very close to an
optimal language.  I think you will agree that when you are doing further
optimizations that you have to be really careful not to take steps
backwards.  Anyway, most of the program I write are not really safety
dependent.  Well I like to feel safe from my tools crashing unexpectedly in
front of important people. ;-)

> In bootcamp they force you to keep your
> shoes shiny and your uniform folded perfectly. Why? Because it
> establishes discipline. Do shiny shoes make you a more effective
> fighter? Of course not.

Well ....  I have noticed that people that have shiny shoes and perfectly
folded uniforms can take pride in this.  This pride helps self-esteem, which
improves the troops moral.  Troops with high moral are way more effective
than troops with low moral.

Note that my argument is rather holistic in that considers the effect in
whole environment.  Naturally, it does not always apply, and this is where
purists shall get unreasonable.

> But try to argue that with a marine DI. It
> would be very much like arguing here that redundant "with" and "use"
> does not make your code "safer" or more reliable. You just cannot
> penetrate a certain mindset.

Well grant you that it depends on the DI.  I would think that a good DI
would recognized when the shining of shoes won't help to make a better
soldier.  However, that would probably exclude good DIs from being purists,
but I can definitely see the an average DI could very well be a purist.