Not what I said, nor does it follow from what I said. Also, not really what you were doing. There's a difference between pointing out problems, or using the existence of problems to trash the reputation of something or someone. Problems are easy to find. It's a convenient excuse to hide behind. But in the end, you can tell from how things are being presented and contextualized, and from what conclusion is actually being promoted.

I'm not going to keep discussing this with you. I think I've done enough to counter this corrosive narrative, no matter where it comes from or what your motives are.

If you're genuine and you do in fact care, you might want to ponder what you're doing.

Have a nice day.

You don't have to "wrongly imagine" anything. Everyone not doing what's "best for society" is how the world works, authoritarianism and the rule of rich elites is the default that everything wants to regress to. There are only ever islands where people managed to push this back towards the corners and make room for more of us.

Human societies have taken millenia to come up with a system (or a few similar systems) which have a chance of holding things somewhat at bay. Is it perfect? Far from it. Does it work? Just honestly compare how things are for disadvantaged or even normal, ordinary people in places that work differently. Could it be better? You bet, there's lots to criticize. But notice that you _can_ criticize. Usually, elsewhere, you can't. Is it getting worse? Yes. The lesson is that you have to keep defending this system that gives you a chance to hold people to account and remove them from power.

Comments like yours above, which claim that everything is maximally bad and rigged, do nothing but help things decay further. "There's nothing that can be done! It's the same everywhere! Why even try?" That's how you get other people to stop caring, too, and then the real assholes take over. You're playing right into their hands. You think it's already as bad as it gets? You think you're no longer naive? Well, then maybe you're doing this on purpose; or you're just a new kind of naive. Either way: you are an active part of this problem.

But if you've spent the time since your teens to come to the opposite conclusion in spite of everything going on around, then I suspect there will be very little I can say to you that will make sense to you.

If anything, your question reduces to making one party sound incompetent or deceitful, I don't know if that's intended. (And considering that aspect of the party is another fun can full of real-life worms.)

These two words lend themselves to that, because of what we use them for. I would not reject them, though. Naming things remains useful; and whatever words we would replace these 2 with, and we would, out of necessity: they'd receive the same treatment.

The words are not the problem here. Using them without thinking is.

I first read your original comment in a much more absolute way (there is no distinction at all, and it never makes any sense anyway), which is quite easy to disagree with.

There's always a gray area of what's intended by the spec, but a program can absolutely and blatantly deviate from the letter of the spec, and they often do.

This distinction seems worthwhile to me, because it means that something someone already relies on does not work (anymore), even though reasonable people would agree that, according to the spec, it should.

Not just the changes, you'd push the responsibility, too, for supporting a whole new compilation target. I don't know how big this is, but if it's a big enough hassle to keep maintaining this yourself, then consider that this maintenance work is really what you were hoping to push. So, depeding on which, you might be fine maintaining this, or the maintainers might have rejected the change, anyway.

Note that it's you who introduced this reduction, not the GP.

Folks, take a step back, both of you. It's just software.

I see this sentiment a lot, and it doesn't match my experience at all.

In my decade-old bubble of using Python professionally, I've never had an issue with virtualenvs. The few issues I might've had with dependency resolution must be so far in the past that I don't remember. But that's not strictly about virtualenvs. Likewise, pip could be clunky, but we don't have to deal with it anymore.

My niche is mostly backend. Other Python niches must be considerably worse in this regard.

Well put. Thanks for taking the time to call this out. Your two comments here are balm for the mental anguish and annoyance I went through reading the so-full-of-misplaced-confidence original comment.