News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by eganist on Monday April 22, 2019 @09:23AM (#19718688)
In practical terms, what would that achieve?
Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by wang_li on Monday April 22, 2019 @11:46AM (#19719804)
Professionalism.
Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by packetslave on Monday April 22, 2019 @01:15PM (#19720668)
"Any time somebody tells you that you shouldn’t do something because it’s “unprofessional,” you know that they’ve run out of real arguments." -- Joel Spolsky
Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by wang_li on Monday April 22, 2019 @01:38PM (#19720881)
Or there is a whole suite of behavior and conduct with well thought out reasons that have been comprehensively debated over the years that have been put under the rubric of professionalism and there is zero reason to rehash the same arguments over and over and over ad infinitum.
Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by ben509 on Monday April 22, 2019 @02:30PM (#19721416)
The same professionalism that generated a shitty, sprawling enterprise codebase?
Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by eganist on Monday April 22, 2019 @12:46PM (#19720402)
One-word quips sound good on paper, but this is an open source project with engineers as the target audience. It's not seeking (at this time) to bring revenue or make sales, so I'd argue that speaking truth to the problem is more likely to drive up adoption.
Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by wang_li on Monday April 22, 2019 @01:45PM (#19720955)
Citing professionalism isn't a quip, it's shorthand for a code of conduct and long accepted practices of interaction with others.

May I ask how the word "shitty" more truthful than "poorly written" or "complex"?

Re:PySnooper: Never use print for debugging again by eganist on Monday April 22, 2019 @01:57PM (#19721068)
> May I ask how the word "shitty" more truthful than "poorly written" or "complex"?

Evokes emotions people affected by a situation can sympathize with more effectively, which by virtue of establishing a shared emotional bond over a topic helps the developer convey not just the situation but the frustrations of the situation more effectively than one might expect "poorly written" or "complex" to do alone.

> Citing professionalism isn't a quip, it's shorthand for a code of conduct and long accepted practices of interaction with others.

The code of conduct isn't uniform, so it can't be used effectively as shorthand for such. But at this point we're in the weeds.

Again, no short-term revenue prospects, just a tool OP wants to socialize to make a few lives easier. If you have an objection over verbiage, that's fine, but it's an exhibition of professionalism from yourself to the OP to build a sound defense of your position as to how it would help the engineer to self-censor the description of a tool where the audience by-and-large may not care.

Up to you. My point is the engineer doesn't need to suppress who they are in this specific context, and my point to you is it shouldn't impact your usage of what looks to be an effective short-term debugging tool.