On Thu, 2024-04-04 at 13:50 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2024-04-04 09:24:45 +0200 (+0200), Christian Rohmann wrote:
On 03.04.24 7:55 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2024-04-03 19:06:25 +0200 (+0200), Sven Kieske wrote: [...]
bad coding practices like inscrutable variable names, no Types being used
[...]
It's hard to say lack of typing is a "bad coding practice" for code that was written (as much as a decade) before Python standardized on any sort of type annotation scheme. Not getting into judgement on whether typing is a real improvement in the language, but don't fault an antique radio for using tubes instead of transistors.
There is a line between not judging something for what it is, some years old, written with the knowledge of the time, and not allowing for new developments and improvements to be leveraged because one holds the "we have always done it this way"-paradigm too high.
[...]
Yes, my point was that it was not "bad coding practice" when some of the code was written (whether or not it is now is debatable hence the discussion), it was in fact the only possible coding practice at the time. Accusing people for not writing to standards that did not exist or were changing too rapidly to follow is going to quickly alienate many of those who you hope to win over with your arguments.
^ yes this i have been contibuting to openstack for over a decade now and over that time i have been invovled in and driven several code moderisation efforts.
the tone that Sven has been taking in this thread has been often bordering on insuting if not mearly condesending.
@sven for people that care deeply about the quality of software we produce and has advocated for using tools like mypi, auto formnating, code modreisers liek pyupgrade ectra the way you are approching this is hurting the efforts to maintain and moderise our codebase more then its helping.
we have been having dissusion like this for years and we are making incremenal impormbet but any kind of browbeating with stats just reads as trying to bully people with data instead of takeing the time to have a calm, reasoned converstation that empathises with the others invovled.
so i strongly agree with jeremy here and i would liek to acknoldage there attempt to descalate the tread and focus more on the positive aspects.
The status quo wins by default, always, and it is incumbent on those proposing change to make a compelling case for any needed investment on the part of others. Appeals to nebulous authority ("bad" by whose definition? how do you measure that empirically?) make for a weak argument. The points you want to make are best supported with evidence, not anecdote. Judgemental phrases like "bad coding practice" are doing everyone who supports this change a disservice by unnecessarily polarizing the discussion and driving some participants into defensive postures. Sticking to facts, rather than opinions, will help you make faster progress with the rest of the community.