[Python-Dev] Trial balloon: microthreads library in stdlib (original) (raw)

Jean-Paul Calderone exarkun at divmod.com
Wed Feb 14 04:34:03 CET 2007

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:20:13 +1300, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:

Greg, productive discussion is not furthered by the unsupported statement of one position or another.

Instead of only stating what you believe to be a problem, explain why you believe it is a problem. A sentence like:

The need for different event-driven mechanisms to compete with each other is the very problem that needs to be addressed.

Invites a response which merely contradicts it (for example, "you are wrong"), an exchange which hasn't helped anyone to understand anything better. If you present supporting evidence for the position, then the validity and the weight of that evidence can be discussed, and one position or another might be shown to have greater validity.

Also, show that you have fully understood the position you are arguing against. For example, if you respond to a message in which someone claims to welcome something, don't respond by saying that requiring that thing is bad. As you know, welcoming something is not the same as requiring that thing, so by making this statement alone, you give the impression of talking past the person to whom you are responding and it may seem to readers that you haven't understood the other person's position.

If Twisted is designed so that it absolutely has to use its own special event mechanism, and everything else needs to be modified to suit its requirements, then it's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Here, you've built on your unsupported premise to arrive at a conclusion which may be controversial. Again, instead of couching the debate in terms of what you might see as self evidence problems, explain why you hold the position you do. That way, the possibility is created for other people to come to understand why you believe the conclusion to be valid.

You have presented what could be the beginning of supporting evidence here, in saying that requiring "everything else" to be modified is undesirable. This is only a place to start, not to end, though. You may want to discuss the real scope of modifications required (because "everything" is obviously hyperbole, focusing on what changes are actually necessary would be beneficial) and why you think that modifications are necessary (it may not be clear to others why they are, or it may be the case that others can correct misconceptions you have).

For example, you might give a case in which you have needed to integrate Twisted (or a different event framework) with another event loop and describe difficulties you discovered. This will help advance the discussion around practical, specific concerns. Without this focus, it is hard for a discussion to be productive, since it will involve only vague handwaving.

Finally, it is often beneficial to avoid bringing up phrases such as "the problem". Particularly in a context such as this, where the existing discussion is focusing on a specific issue, such as the necessity or utility of adding a new set of functionality to the Python standard library, the relevance of "the problem" may not be apparent to readers. In this case, some may not find it obvious how a third party library can be "the problem" with such new functionality. If you explicitly spell out the detrimental consequences of an action, instead of waving around "the problem", the resulting discussion can be that much more productive and focused.

Thanks

Jean-Paul

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list