3 ms·

This isn't one of the 'some'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed

scott_s 18y ago
I don't think this is bike-shedding. That applies when people argue over two functionally equivalent options, often to the detriment of more important issues. In this case, their objection is that it violates their intuition, but the placement of join is a natural result of how Python's types are defined. Defining join on all sequences would have real (annoying) implications.
- calambrac 18y ago
  That applies when people argue over two functionally equivalent options, often to the detriment of more important issues. How does that not fit this situation? Because there's actually a good technical reason to do it the way it's currently done? Wouldn't that imply that there should be even less discussion of it?
  - scott_s 18y ago
    No, because the discussion should be explaining that good technical reason. Which is what happened. Bike-shedding is when the arguments have relatively the same merit, and the choice makes little difference in the end. I don't think either applies. An example of bike-shedding in this context would be renaming join to fuse.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      Bike-shedding is when someone feels the need to interject their opinion simply because the topic is something they feel they understand, regardless of whether that interjection actually contributes anything. Bitching that '\n'.join(alist) should be alist.join('\n') is a favorite pastime of people who want to demonstrate that they've heard of OO programming. It's a perfect example of bike-shedding.
      - scott_s 18y ago
        When I use the term, I assume both sides have marginal arguments - so the resulting discussion is a waste of time. I use it this way to remind a group that we're not discussing something important. But if one of the sides has merit, than it's important for the other side to understand that.
        calambrac 18y ago
        You can't just make up your own definition of a well-known term and then call people wrong when they use it correctly: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=506636+517178+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd-hackers/19991003.freebsd-hackers http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=506636+517178+/u...
        scott_s 18y ago
        I think my interpretation is the more common one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bikeshedding http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bikeshedding All of these definitions require the issue to be of marginal benefit to the overall problem. The observation that people feel the need to contribute their opinion on matters they feel they know about is why bikeshedding happens, but it's not bikeshedding itself.
        calambrac 18y ago
        You said "When I use the term...", a little phrase implying personal subjective interpretation, and that's was what I was responding to when I said "you can't just make up your definition", but okay, scratch that part. The more important point was that you can't call someone wrong when they're using the actual, original definition correctly, which I was (the link I included was how the term entered the geek lexicon).
        18y ago

scott_s 18y ago

I don't think this is bike-shedding. That applies when people argue over two functionally equivalent options, often to the detriment of more important issues. In this case, their objection is that it violates their intuition, but the placement of join is a natural result of how Python's types are defined. Defining join on all sequences would have real (annoying) implications.

calambrac 18y ago
That applies when people argue over two functionally equivalent options, often to the detriment of more important issues. How does that not fit this situation? Because there's actually a good technical reason to do it the way it's currently done? Wouldn't that imply that there should be even less discussion of it?
- scott_s 18y ago
  No, because the discussion should be explaining that good technical reason. Which is what happened. Bike-shedding is when the arguments have relatively the same merit, and the choice makes little difference in the end. I don't think either applies. An example of bike-shedding in this context would be renaming join to fuse.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    Bike-shedding is when someone feels the need to interject their opinion simply because the topic is something they feel they understand, regardless of whether that interjection actually contributes anything. Bitching that '\n'.join(alist) should be alist.join('\n') is a favorite pastime of people who want to demonstrate that they've heard of OO programming. It's a perfect example of bike-shedding.
    - scott_s 18y ago
      When I use the term, I assume both sides have marginal arguments - so the resulting discussion is a waste of time. I use it this way to remind a group that we're not discussing something important. But if one of the sides has merit, than it's important for the other side to understand that.
      - calambrac 18y ago
        You can't just make up your own definition of a well-known term and then call people wrong when they use it correctly: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=506636+517178+/usr/local/www/db/text/1999/freebsd-hackers/19991003.freebsd-hackers http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=506636+517178+/u...
        scott_s 18y ago
        I think my interpretation is the more common one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bikeshedding.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bikeshedding http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bikeshedding All of these definitions require the issue to be of marginal benefit to the overall problem. The observation that people feel the need to contribute their opinion on matters they feel they know about is why bikeshedding happens, but it's not bikeshedding itself.
        calambrac 18y ago
        You said "When I use the term...", a little phrase implying personal subjective interpretation, and that's was what I was responding to when I said "you can't just make up your definition", but okay, scratch that part. The more important point was that you can't call someone wrong when they're using the actual, original definition correctly, which I was (the link I included was how the term entered the geek lexicon).
        18y ago