> yet the general tone of the responses has been more defensive than i would > have expected. i don't really understand why. nothing really terrible, > given the extremes you get on the net in general, but still a little > disappointing.
I think this is fairly easy to explain. The OP closes with the question "Does that say something about the code quality of Python3.0?" thus suggesting that the quality of Python 3 is poor. Nobody likes to hear that the quality of his work is poor. He then goes on saying "But it seems that the stable & successful software releases tend to have relatively stable duplication rate." suggesting that Python 3.0 cannot be successful, because it doesn't have a relatively stable duplication rate. Nobody likes to hear that a project one has put many month into cannot be successful. Hence the defensive responses. > i'm not saying there is such a solution. i'm not even saying that there > is certainly a problem. i'm just making the quiet observation that the > original information is interesting, might be useful, and should be > welcomed. The information is interesting. I question whether it is useful as-is, as it doesn't tell me *what* code got duplicated (and it seems it is also incorrect, since it includes analysis of generated code). While I can welcome the information, I cannot welcome the conclusion that the OP apparently draws from them. Regards, Martin -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
