Opinion

Typically I read at least one news story a day that irritates me, usually I either don't care enough to gripe about them further, or I forget. After griping at ET about driving in the car with a phone in her hand, I remembered an article I read the SF Streets Blog titled: "Advocates Concerned That Cyclists Are Included in Distracted Driving Bill" (link)

One of the choice quotes from the article being:

The California Bicycle Coalition (CBC), which was an early supporter of the original distracted driving legislation, was not thrilled about the inclusion of cyclists in the bill. CBC Communications Director Jim Brown said that he was confused about the motivation for extending the same level of fines to cyclists, particularly absent data showing distracted cycling as a public safety hazard.

"The consequences of a distracted driver are considerably more serious than the consequences of distracted cycling," said Brown, adding that safe riding should be encouraged at all times and that talking on a cell phone or any other practice that distracted a cyclist from riding would not be advisable.

As a member of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, I'm partially annoyed by Mr. Brown's comments, but I don't particularly care. Reading further through the article, I found this:

Andy Thornley, Program Director for The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, agreed with Winter that lumping cyclists with motorists in this law was not good policy. While the SFBC "teaches and preaches safe, respectful, and mindful bicycling," said Thornley, "we're very leery of any equivalence of penalty when punishing a guilty cyclist or driver for the same offense."

"Even worse, we wonder whether bicyclists would be cited more often than motorists because it's so much easier to spot someone texting while pedaling," he added. "It's already a problem of perception that individual bicycle riders seem to be noticed being naughty more than motorists, comfortably anonymous within their glass and steel boxes."

What a hypocrite! Riding your bike while on the phone or worse, texting is just as stupid as some of the no-helmet, no-light nonsense I was incensed over a few weeks ago, but the fact that these two gentlemen from Bike Coalitions want preferential treatment for cyclists in the most idiotic way possible blows my mind. To be honest, I'm entirely in favor of bicyclists being cited more often than motorists for breaking the law (running red lights or not using signals comes to mind).

This kind of no-distractions law makes a lot of sense to me, and should be applied to just about anybody operating a moving vehicle, bikes, trikes, motorcycles, mopeds, cars, tractors, law mowers, you name it. If you are operating a vehicle distracted you raise your chances of hurting yourself or others on public roads (ever been hit while walking by a cyclist?).

Inside of the San Francisco cycling community, I think we can do our part by shunning or otherwise pushing cyclists into light posts who are on their cell phones while riding. They are clearly morons and in my opinion the CBC or the SFBC has no place defending their idiocy.

Writing software is an outlet for artistic expression to many people, myself included. For me, solving problems involves a good deal of creativity not only in the actual solution but also in the manipulating several moving parts in order to fit the solution into an existing code-base. Combining this creative outlet with a beautiful language, such as Python results in some developers writing code that holds an masterpiece-level of beauty to them, to the untrained eye one might look at a class and think nothing of it, but to the author of that code, it might represent a substantial amount of work and personal investment.

Like art, sometimes the beauty is entirely subjective. there has been times where I've been immensely pleased with one of my creations, only to turn to wholly unimpressed Dave. Managing or working with any team of highly motivated, passionate and creative developers presents this problem, as a group: how can you objectively judge code while preserving the sense of ownership by the author?

Dealing with statics in Python is something that has bitten me enough times that I have become quite pedantic about them when I see them. I'm sure you're thinking "But Dr. Tyler, Python is a dynamic language!", it is indeed, but that does not mean there aren't static variables.

The funny thing about static variables in Python, in my opinion, once you understand a bit about scoping and what you're dealing with, it makes far more sense. Let's take this static class variable for example:

>>> class Foo(object):
...   my_list = []
... 
>>> f = Foo()
>>> b = Foo()

You're trying to be clever, defining your class variables with their default variables outside of your __init__ function, understandable, unless you ever intend on mutating that variable.

>>> f.my_list.append('O HAI')
>>> print b.my_list
['O HAI']
>>> 

Still feeling clever? If that's what you wanted, I bet you do, but if you wanted each class to have its own internal list you've inadvertantly introduced a bug where any and every time something mutates my_list, it will change for every single instance of Foo. The reason that this occurs is because my_list is tied to the class object Foo and not the instance of the Foo object (f or b). In effect f.__class__.my_list and b.__class__.my_list are the same object, in fact, the __class__ objects of both those instances is the same as well.

>>> id(f.__class__)
7680112
>>> id(b.__class__)
7680112

When using default/optional parameters for methods you can also run afoul of statics in Python, for example:

>>> def somefunc(data=[]):
...    data.append(1)
...    print ('data', data)
... 
>>> somefunc()
('data', [1])
>>> somefunc()
('data', [1, 1])
>>> somefunc()
('data', [1, 1, 1])
>>> 

This comes down to a scoping issue as well, functions and methods in Python are first-class objects. In this case, you're adding the variable data to the somefunc.func_defaults tuple, which is being mutated when the function is being called. Bad programmer!

It all seems simple enough, but I still consistently see these mistakes in plenty of different Python projects (both pony-affiliated, and not). When these bugs strike they're difficult to spot, frustrating to deal with ("who the hell is changing my variable!") and most importantly, easily prevented with a little understanding of how Python scoping works.

PYRAGE!

My "roots" in the open source community come from the BSD side of the open source spectrum, my first major introduction being involvement with FreeBSD and OpenBSD. It is not surprising that my licensing preferences fall on the BSD (2 or 3 clause) or MIT licenses, the MIT license reading as follows:

Copyright (c) [year] [copyright holders]

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

I bring the subject up because I wanted to address a brief "kerfuffle" that occurred recently on the Eventlet mailing list with the maintainer of gevent, a fork/rewrite of Eventlet. Both projects are MIT licensed which gives anybody that would like to fork the source code of either project a great deal of leeway to hack about with the code, commercialize it, etc.

There are few things I truly enjoy in life, things that warm my heart and make me smile from ear to ear, things like hot oatmeal and coffee, cell coverage in San Francisco, back scratches and not dying. If I didn't commute every single day on my bicycle, I'd likely put "bike riding" on the list too but it's hard to be ecstatic about something you start and finish every workday with (except for maybe some recreational yelling). For about 25 minutes every morning and 25 minutes every night, I'm a cyclist in San Francisco, nothing terribly unique, I am one of many cyclists in the city during rush hour and I have been noticing some things lately.

First of all, let me address my fellow cyclists. Some of you (you hopefully know who you are) are unadulterated, complete fucking-assholes. I understand that you don't need a license to ride a bicycle but you still have to obey the rules of the road. Among other things this means you should be courteous to those you're sharing the road with which includes:

• Using hand signals
• Yielding (you can use the dictionary on the iPhone that you're pulling out at intersections to look up what that word means). Despite the ironic t-shirt you're wearing underneath your hoodie, you are not "King of the World".
• Riding on streets safe for bicycle use. I know you love to ride down Oak St. and Van Ness in rush hour but it does nothing but piss drivers off. There are typically less trafficked streets adjacent to busy streets which are preferred for cyclist use (such as Page and Market St.).
• Stopping at stop lights. I'm sure Gavin and the SFPD have given you an exemption from basic traffic laws but the drivers coming into the intersection don't know that. You are making things dangerous for everybody around you on the road; stop it.

Given the hours I work, I'm typically riding home in the dark, where I've noticed a group of people who don't share the same love of "not dying" as I do. I'm going to call them the "Suicide Cyclists." This group of morons never cease to disappoint, without fail you'll see one or two of them riding down a busy street (like Market St.) with no lights and no helmet. Some vindictive part of me really would like to see a car accidentally hit one of them. I don't want them to seriously injure or kill anybody, just a light enough tap to send them to the ground and bump their head just hard enough to knock some god-damn sense into it.

There are parts of my bike ride where I might even crash into one of these Suicide Cyclists, places where I'm riding on a two-way bike path (through a poorly lit park) or where I'm turning at an intersection. If through some unfortunate turn of events we crash into each other, the cyclist wearing a dark sweatshirt with no helmet or lights on their bicycle, and me, with my plethora of lights and hand signals, you can be certain that the next thing that's going to happen is assault with a U-Lock against some poor schmuck who's too stupid to ride on the right side of the bike path in the dark.

To be honest, I can deal with the immense number of drivers not paying enough attention to the bike lanes, red lights or speed limits, the majority of the time cars do not cut through intersections, sidewalks, parks and everywhere else. Their trajectories are far more predictable than some jerk riding his fixie with his corduroy bike cap where ever he damn well pleases.

Grumble.

Some users of Hudson have already started to notice a subtle addition to the latest release, 1.343, a new background watermark image.

The commit message (r26728) from Kohsuke, the incredibly talented founder and maintainer of the Hudson project, adds a bit of sadness to the whole affair:

In tribute to Sun Microsystems and all my colleagues who had to go today. I hope the community would forgive me for doing this.

Given the incredible speed at which the tech industry grows and moves, it's easy to forget that there are a number of talented engineers that have spent their careers at Sun building technologies that have helped change the face of modern computing, regardless of whether or not Sun could figure out how to sell them: SunOS/Solaris, Java, DTrace, SPARC 64-bit chips, Sun Grid Engine, JRuby, the W3C XML specification, ZFS, OpenOffice (acquisition), MySQL (acquisition), and VirtualBox (acquisition).

As a corporation, I personally think Sun was a failure, as a foundation of engineering in Silicon Valley, I think Sun has been quite successful.

To those that are being pushed out as part of the merger with Oracle, I want to sincerely thank you for your contributions to computing and wish you the best of luck.