PythonicAlpha

I have seen, that despite the fact, that open offices are criticized for I think at least 20 years (somebody mentioned the book Peopleware that is a real classic) the idea is keeping coming up in big companies. First time it was presented to me, it was as big "new invention" that has proven to better communications .... that was already at least 10 years after Peopleware ... (so much about new "invention"). Then, some years later, it was brought to us as big break-threw for "teams of ten" better for scrum and the like ... how wonderful, old wine in even older bottles! Of course they sweard that would get enough extra spaces for retreat, so that people could go there to have silence .... then it was only talked about one spare room, may be for two big team offices (meaning, for 20 people ... so much about retreat possibilities!). Later also this was canceled, since facility management was unable to prepare enough extra space ... What was left: Everybody got notebooks instead of regular PCs and many where happy with this "generous gift".

And so the story goes: The same foolish idea keeps on popping up and popping up, I guess because every now and then a business magazine for managers writes how wonderful the idea is ....

And so the tailor keeps on sewing The Emperor's New Cloth!

>Simple for users just isn't the same as simple under the hood.

Right, and exactly that is the reason, why we are in desperate need for really professional computer scientists (or programmers, how you want to name it). But the trend is the other way around. Everybody is searching for the quick solution and the cheapest programmers, or hackers (I even see many job offers that go in the direction hacker rather than professionals).

It takes a real professional to cope with the complexity and reduce it to the minimal value. But in our current trend, we will thinks getting worse and worse, because we have far to much coding and far to less professionals (and even they can't afford to make a clean job oftentimes).

I also would recommend that approach! The problem is, that you need more professional and better programmers that are aware of the problem and do reduce the complexity. Many self indulgent programmers, that think they are smart, won't.

But the trend is more to hire more and more novice programmers (because they are cheaper) ... so we get more into trouble in the future!

About Unicode: It might be right, that this one would not be easy provided in compatible way. But what they did, was worse. They made it unnecessary difficult to change from Py2 to 3 -- one reason were the literals. In Py2 it was common to use u" for Unicode literals. Py3 did not accept that syntax at all, since every literal was Unicode -- logical, right? Wrong! Just stupid! Thus laying one roadblock for Py3. Many Unicode programs had thousands of places with these literals (syntax error!) -- change every one, and even worse, when you change it, then Py2 will not accept it any more, because in Py2, literals without u are not Unicode any more (and will raise a different error!).

In Py3.3 or so, they at last detected the problem and fixed at least this one ... but very late! Many programmers might have turned their backs to Py3 already.

>I believe many of us have seen crazier bugs.

Might be, but is it a good sign for computer industry as a whole?

Nothing new for Microsoft: There is a reason, they had to drop Office 95 and completely re-implemented it. I guess, the day will come, that the current implementation must be abandoned too.

The trouble with today's computing is: Just to much complexity around (starting from the OS, and that is also valid for Linux, I must say!) and to few really good programmers that make things better (and not worse). I see also in the Linux world to much complexity and to few real professionals.

Real professionals don't try to handle complexity -- they try to minimize it!

Even than, I doubt that it would be helpful, since still so many C extensions are just not available in Python 3. I also don't think that it is a problem of apathy, but of wrong initial planning. With better initial compatibility, a bigger momentum could be reached. Now the decisive point is over and we will have to live long with both versions around (even when Guido sets a date).

Only thing that could really help, I think, would be a really big improvement in Python 3 that makes it more attractive to move, but that could also widen the gap between the two.

No, I disagree. So many programs rely on further support for Python 2. When you would end the life of Python 2, I myself would think, if I have to make a switch, should I switch to a more reliable codebase??? (Ruby, maybe -- I don't know enough about Ruby, but I would have a look on it)

The reliability is one of Pythons strength and one of the reasons I use it. Take away the reliability and you will loose a lot. You will loose also many friends (like myself).

There was a blog post recently and stated an other option: Bring Py2 and Py3 nearer together to make the switch easier -- than more people would willingly move.

Some obstacles for moving where removed -- but a little late (e.g. the u"-Syntax was used many times in Py2 (at least outside english speaking countries or where localization is a topic) -- but abandoned in Py3. That was not necessary, but blocked an easy migration, because there are so many positions the code can be in. Now Py3 also supports the syntax and just ignores it ... why was that option not taken in the first place???) and not all. As much I know, there are still major differences when programming C extension libraries .... that makes porting existing libraries unnecessary troublesome.

Such things where not recognized early enough and still hamper adoption of Py3. Remove the blocks and you will gain more ground!

No, if it is a library, that you use all over your code. And you will not risk that your project fails, just because somebody wants to use only the newest stuff. Nobody in a time critical project (when it is not?), will switch from Py2 to Py3 just because it is the most recent version of Python and replace at least one library that is written in C and does not work in Py3. Either you have to replace the whole lib or you have to port the lib itself (what is not easy, when you don't have an experienced extension coder in team -- and also than, it is a risk!).

You are right, that developers are most of the time bad marketers. But I must disagree with the notion "... besides what he shows me had done" (I admit that might not have been your point, but I still want to loose a word or two about it).

That's a problem intrinsic with software: What you "see" is not what you get. You see a perfect polished UI, but you get a sack of bugs! So this criterion is not usable at all. The intrinsic values of a program are not visible to non-developers at all. Even software-companies have a hard time, deciding which criterion to choose as a base for decisions.

I think, when you look at cars or houses, people are more likely to ask a professional to decide about the condition of the car or house. Also everybody that loves his car (and life) will bring his car to some person that has read some books about motors and does repair the brakes "half-prize" in his back-yard. But in software practice, you just want to see some polished front lids of cars and decide that the brake repairs will be fine.

I want to shine some light on one side problem, scratched here:

The problem today is (out of the perspective of a developer): To many companies rely on just "hire any (cheap) developer" to ramp up the product. I see it all the time: Quality is not asked for, many companies (specially in the web business) just want the cheapest developers. They search for a student (at best), because he is cheap and will just make a small time estimation and an even smaller fixed price offer for the project. The student will happily work overtime that is not covered by the initial estimation.

Than the companies go mad, when either the programmer is running away or the whole project runs into a blind alley (or both at the same time), because the "totally expensive" programmer had not enough experience e.g. with database development and the database structure just lets you shiver. Then the shouting and anger is big: "Damn programmers -- all are liars and lazy!"

What went wrong, stated Uncle Bob correctly in his Blog: http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2013/11/19/HoardsOfNovice...

But the "cheap, cheap!" culture seams to be unstoppable. If you tell people in advance about "quality" and "professionalism", they don't listen or just laugh at you. It seams, all the people just have to find out the hard way -- but I guess, even than most of them will not learn at all.

I think, one mistake that was made with Python 3 is, that compatibility had initially very limited attention. They solved many problems of Python 2, but left the legacy behind ... and there was the trouble:

* Many libraries where limited to Python 2, because the effort converting them seamed to high

* Because of minor problems (like the infamous u"-stuff), the overhead converting simple Python 2 programs was to high.

Some of the problems where fixed later (e.g. infamous u"- is now legal in Python 3 and ignored -- why not before??), but I think that than it also was a little late ... Python 3 has evolved further and many people just got into the habit to ignore Python 3.

Not caring about compatibility can be necessary, but also can be a burden (that hurts a long time)!

Could be. But there is the crux: A language should guide the programmers to good use of the possibilities of that language. If it does not, what worth are they?

You also must define "idiomatic Python" or "idiomatic C#" first. I would recommend, that you first write your post and than commence with the discussion.

I would not agree, that C# is nearly as productive as Python. Have you ever programmed in Python? I doubt that!

It seams, that porn, crimes and terrorism are the honeypots of choice for the voters, to lead them into any form of surveillance and mind-control.

It seams, that porn, crimes and terrorism are the honeypots of choice for the voters into any form of surveillance. 1984 is over, long live 1984!

No, its because he uncovered how corrupt the whole system is.

To sad, there is no link to down-vote a comment.

Given, the police men are doing there jobs. Given, they have bad circumstances and are making the best out of it. Given, that many people want to serve the public ....

BUT: I think, this testimony is important, because it shows, how crooked the whole legislative system in the US stinks. It not only verifies the things we see in better documentaries, but shows, that the system is totally corrupt.

It shows, what happens, when race and wealth have become the main decision factor in a system that claims to give even rights to anybody.

In my opinion, this man was punished in this disproportional way, not because he deliberately did a crime or wasted state money (what a ridiculous argument!), but because he uncovered a corrupt system.

This whole case just shows, how incompetent many people in Jurisdiction are. Also no positive promotion for the German government.

Since there seams to be no online video (yet), could you please list the principles added?

Also, not everybody has the possibility to visit a conference in Australia.

These principles taught me to think in object oriented ways.

Object orientation is a black box to many and many people think they program object orientated, only because they program in Java or C#. But that's not true. Object Orientation is about program architecture. Learning OO-Pattern is essential for this task and to know the guiding principles of good architectures. Start SOLID and you are save.

Capitalism: Lemmings running towards the verge of the abyss and the priests of capitalism are yelling: Faster, Faster!

Stealing other peoples ideas, that it what today's patent industry is all about.

Today's capitalism itself is about stealing: (Globalization is about) stealing the work power of other people to make as much money as possible with it.

Oh right! You are so right! Unfortunately, I can't correct the comment anymore.

Another ridiculous software patent that should die!

I people had patented B-trees, there would be no MySQL or other free database and royalities had to be paid on any database of the world.

Or guess, somebody would have patented Quicksearch ... a thousand times more plausible thing to patent.

Trust is a decision: A society, that does not have trust in each other, will fail, sooner or later.

I agree. Patent trolls are not the biggest problem at all. Sometimes I think, they are a good distraction from the real problem. Instead thinking about what to do about patent trolls, the governments should think, if they really can afford an out-of-hands patent system.

There where times, when getting a patent was really difficult, also for bigger companies. But today, every little nuisance can be patented (e.g. 1-click), just formulate it right and bring old things into new contexts to convince patent-officers (e.g. round edges). Of course patent-officers have their own advantages today, when more patents are granted ... what a mess!

I think, that was the only chance, they saw.

But that's what a patent-troll is for: Being paid. They are like highwaymen, they want to be paid, for what, is not important. If the money is OK, they will even go on their own kind.

It does nearly never protect small inventors and small companies. In the current time of big lawsuits and big money for lawyers, big is what succeeds. Small companies either:

- can not afford to patent everything they do - can not afford to find potential infringing companies - can not afford patent lawsuits

Even when they patent, and even when they know, that some other company infringes their patent, they just are not able to take the risk of patent lawsuits. In the case of a big other company it also can be the same as suicide. There is an anecdote, that one big company (everybody knows) send their patent lawyers to a small company, saying, they are infringing their patent X. The small company proved to the lawyers, they did not. But those hard-boiled lawyers just said: Look, we have X-thousand patents. We will find many others, you infringe and sue you, unless you pay us now for this patent! They paid, of course!

The patent system has become like highwaymen -- many see the big money without effort -- and it is. Those that are robbed, oftentimes are the real creative persons. And so, the patent system just has become the opposite to what it pretends to be. And of course, patent-attorneys, lawyers and even politicians defend a corrupted system, because they benefit from it.

Best example is Bill Gates: In his early time he stated, that patents on software would harm the software industry. Today he is one of the biggest proponent of the system, since his company today is big and he things it would profit from it. But in the end, even for M$, I doubt.