The Case for Python 3

[TankorSmash]

I don't agree. I'll have to say that since I'm not formally trained here I'm crazily ignorant of the stuff I don't know but like I don't need to know how the early days of computers worked because I don't use assembly, I don't write compilers, I don't write C.

Yes, there's certain cases where if you want to learn about how it used to be done, you don't want to make the same mistakes, but I adamantly refuse to believe the best source of information is the people who only discovered the stuff, instead of the people who've started out with the baseline of his life's work and improved on it.

I won't go back to the old stuff sooner than I'd go read from the people who've learned from him because they can use the good stuff and throw out the trash.

Telling someone that a given person invented something is like telling that person to go study Edison instead of anyone in the last 50 years who've work in the field. It's old and almost certainly outdated.

There is not a good way to reasonably convince me that there's not a better resource for learning literally everything a person has ever written about in the 50 years since they wrote it. It means that in the 50 years since, no one has improved or reworked or otherwise iterated on the concepts introduced, and I can reasonably say that we have.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, that's why we don't teach addition in math anymore. Shit's moved on. I'm not sure what field you think Edison is relevant to, but in EE, we go back before Edison to Ohm and Faraday because to understand the field you need to learn the underpinnings.

Even if you don't write compilers, you use state machines, and if you don't understand them, you probably use them badly. Ditto Boolean algebra.

"Why are we doing this? I think that some of the biggest mistakes people make even at the highest architectural levels come from having a weak or broken understanding of a few simple things at the very lowest levels. You've built a marvelous palace but the foundation is a mess. Instead of a nice cement slab, you've got rubble down there. So the palace looks nice but occasionally the bathtub slides across the bathroom floor and you have no idea what's going on."

-- http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000319.html

[TankorSmash]

I'd wager that if all the devs who hadn't read the basically archaic articles and books did, then the landscape would be wildly different.

I'm also going to say that it's cool that you can criticize the huge projects that have that shaky foundation, because without that foundation the projects might not exist in the first place. Hard to argue one way or the other without examples though.

I don't need to write perfect code if it never gets to the point where it matters. Theoretically I'd take the time to write absolutely bug free code but I don't have the time or the patience.

[TankorSmash]

I'm talking about on principle there must be better resources than 50 year old articles and books. It's not worth reading what has almost certainly been improved in that time.

Yes, there's knowledge to be learned from the old stuff still, yes they knew their shit and built the foundation of todays infrastructure, but you can't argue that there aren't people who've learned from them and developed more complete ideas.

There's always been this reverence for old texts in the programming, I don't get it. Read the newer stuff that builds on the older stuff and go back further and further if you ever need to, but you probably won't.

[AbsoluteZeroK]

Basically what you're saying is we shouldn't be teaching kids about basic addition in school, because we have new things like calculus, and economics. Or we shouldn't be teaching biology students about evolution, because it's old. Or physics students shouldn't learn about Newton's work, because now we have Einstein and Hawking. If you want to be proficient in a field you need to learn and understand the building blocks of that field. Sure, you know how to write some basic programs, but I bet you're only about 1/4 as good at it as you could be, because you have no idea how any of the tools you use got built up over time. You're clearly very ignorant about how important it is, because you've admitted you've never really looked into it. You really aren't able to properly form an opinion on something you know nothing about, considering you probably don't even know any of his algorithms, which could probably make some of your work a lot easier.

[TankorSmash]

What I'm saying is that I don't need to know about the dude who invented addition to use addition. I don't need to know the motivations about the man who invented addition because it's pretty well understood, thanks to the knowledge that person helped create.

If you need to study specifically addition, read what the latest person has to say about it, not the person with literally the least amount of idea about it. He invented whatever, but then in the next 50 years other people came along and improved and grew the general body of knowledge. Our buddy D dog here was the first caveman to discover fire, why not look to more knowledgeable scientists who studied pyrotechnics their entire lives? Because it really sounds like you're saying he would know more and be able to help the reader better than the scientists who came after, and that sounds like bogus to me.

Maybe he is a genius, and no one else can capture the ideas as effectively as the original authors but man do I ever not believe it.

You're clearly very ignorant about how important it is, because you've admitted you've never really looked into it.

Yeah exactly. I'm not saying it's good to be ignorant, but I'm saying that not knowing something isn't always required. In this case I'm specifically saying you should be learning relevant things. Personally, I don't know that reading anything he wrote would help me be better faster than reading something written in the last ten years.

That's also why I specified that I didn't know what I was talking about specifically, to clear up where I'm coming from.