4 ms·

My languages of choice are Python(2, of course) and Erlang. Most of my fellows seem obsessed with multicore programming, which IMO is only useful for latency bo

My languages of choice are Python(2, of course) and Erlang. Most of my fellows seem obsessed with multicore programming, which IMO is only useful for latency bound situations such as an OS or game engine. For everything else, multinode wins handily. I'm pleased to see yet-another one of my favorite applications building on the fantastic BEAM VM.

derefr 11y ago
I love Erlang and the concept of multinode programming, but sometimes I wish it could lean back into the multicore/SIMD world. A lot of the time, actors are the right choice; but for things like nodes in a physics engine, you obviously want to take a big pile of them and stream them through a matrix multiplication or something of the sort, if you can. If there was a language that let me define something in terms of an individual actor-modelled components, but then allowed you to optimize some of them into batched GPGPU passes (and apply strict simulation ticking and so forth in the process), I feel like it would "win" all sorts of domains. Erlang could be that language with a little work.
sanderjd 11y ago
> Python(2, of course) Sorry to veer off topic a bit, but as a Python-lover-but-outsider I've long been mystified by the almost proud unwillingness of the community to embrace Python 3. It seems like a better language to me. What am I missing?
- strong_ai 11y ago
  afaik the two main reasons are 1) the expense of porting from 2.* to 3.* and 2) some libraries do not yet support 3 http://python3wos.appspot.com/ http://python3wos.appspot.com/
- BuckRogers 11y ago
  Few reasons and there's more but I won't go on forever. 1)The "latest version" of a programming language is not the same as having the latest version of Firefox. Having the latest version can actually be a detriment if you lose libraries as with Python3. 2)It may be unpopular, but I tend to follow the market to a certain degree. Python is my language of choice for home projects and employment. But almost all employers use Python2.x. So I follow them just to keep 1 less hassle out of my life. 3)Losing the long tail of libraries that 2.x has. Many things support Python3, and I'm not against it. I'm just waiting for the day when Python3 is more convenient than Python2 to move. I wasn't one asking for the Py3 changes, and they certainly weren't done for me. So I don't feel like being inconvenienced or doing any porting/heavy lifting in the meantime. 4)My petty reason. I think everyone should just do what's in their best interests. I advertised that "2 of course" because it is a given, but rarely stated. I've met a number of pushy Python3 folks and find them distasteful, which hasn't helped budge me in the slightest. They've probably made me a little edgy on that topic. 5)It's a programming language, so what helps you build something the fastest should be what we use. Today that's still Python2. Some people feel very passionately about Python3 and I hope they spend many hours porting and building the ecosystem for my arrival one day. What seems to be going on instead is they're hoping to convert more devotees that will go out there and do a bunch of free ports. 6)I'm more concerned with moving too early than I am too late when the Python3 ecosystem one day, maybe, eclipses Python2. They're just not that different, I've used both and it's no different from building software with 2. But they have vastly different breadth of libraries in 2's favor. They also screwed up on a few things with 3, it isn't really a flat "upgrade" either. 7)Python3 is just adding more bloat. I generally prefer features are REMOVED from a language until there's nothing left that could reasonably be removed from the core language. Ideally I'd like to see a small version of Python with the basics never touched and features added through addons or a macro system. Latest version, upgrade, and support-ends-2020 are all political statements in regards to Python3 that mean nothing in reality. Latest version- what can't be backported? Upgrade- more like sidegrade once all things are considered. Support EOL- total smoke and mirrors, code will not stop running post 2020. They're tossing every feature against the wall that they can to fix that. I'm one that holds feature-soup in disdain though so this is unattractive to me, and I prefer a well thought out "one way to do it" (Zen of Python) approach. Python is well beyond the basics at this point and not a small language, but at least 2.7 is frozen and I can choose to use the backports people provide if I want. I like a smaller core language if possible because I have to read other people's codebases.

derefr 11y ago

I love Erlang and the concept of multinode programming, but sometimes I wish it could lean back into the multicore/SIMD world. A lot of the time, actors are the right choice; but for things like nodes in a physics engine, you obviously want to take a big pile of them and stream them through a matrix multiplication or something of the sort, if you can. If there was a language that let me define something in terms of an individual actor-modelled components, but then allowed you to optimize some of them into batched GPGPU passes (and apply strict simulation ticking and so forth in the process), I feel like it would "win" all sorts of domains. Erlang could be that language with a little work.

sanderjd 11y ago

> Python(2, of course) Sorry to veer off topic a bit, but as a Python-lover-but-outsider I've long been mystified by the almost proud unwillingness of the community to embrace Python 3. It seems like a better language to me. What am I missing?

strong_ai 11y ago
afaik the two main reasons are 1) the expense of porting from 2.* to 3.* and 2) some libraries do not yet support 3 http://python3wos.appspot.com/ http://python3wos.appspot.com/
BuckRogers 11y ago
Few reasons and there's more but I won't go on forever. 1)The "latest version" of a programming language is not the same as having the latest version of Firefox. Having the latest version can actually be a detriment if you lose libraries as with Python3. 2)It may be unpopular, but I tend to follow the market to a certain degree. Python is my language of choice for home projects and employment. But almost all employers use Python2.x. So I follow them just to keep 1 less hassle out of my life. 3)Losing the long tail of libraries that 2.x has. Many things support Python3, and I'm not against it. I'm just waiting for the day when Python3 is more convenient than Python2 to move. I wasn't one asking for the Py3 changes, and they certainly weren't done for me. So I don't feel like being inconvenienced or doing any porting/heavy lifting in the meantime. 4)My petty reason. I think everyone should just do what's in their best interests. I advertised that "2 of course" because it is a given, but rarely stated. I've met a number of pushy Python3 folks and find them distasteful, which hasn't helped budge me in the slightest. They've probably made me a little edgy on that topic. 5)It's a programming language, so what helps you build something the fastest should be what we use. Today that's still Python2. Some people feel very passionately about Python3 and I hope they spend many hours porting and building the ecosystem for my arrival one day. What seems to be going on instead is they're hoping to convert more devotees that will go out there and do a bunch of free ports. 6)I'm more concerned with moving too early than I am too late when the Python3 ecosystem one day, maybe, eclipses Python2. They're just not that different, I've used both and it's no different from building software with 2. But they have vastly different breadth of libraries in 2's favor. They also screwed up on a few things with 3, it isn't really a flat "upgrade" either. 7)Python3 is just adding more bloat. I generally prefer features are REMOVED from a language until there's nothing left that could reasonably be removed from the core language. Ideally I'd like to see a small version of Python with the basics never touched and features added through addons or a macro system. Latest version, upgrade, and support-ends-2020 are all political statements in regards to Python3 that mean nothing in reality. Latest version- what can't be backported? Upgrade- more like sidegrade once all things are considered. Support EOL- total smoke and mirrors, code will not stop running post 2020. They're tossing every feature against the wall that they can to fix that. I'm one that holds feature-soup in disdain though so this is unattractive to me, and I prefer a well thought out "one way to do it" (Zen of Python) approach. Python is well beyond the basics at this point and not a small language, but at least 2.7 is frozen and I can choose to use the backports people provide if I want. I like a smaller core language if possible because I have to read other people's codebases.