4 ms·

So basically recreate an entire language and library ecosystem because there is one feature that is less than ideal? I hope you realize why a better approach ma

So basically recreate an entire language and library ecosystem because there is one feature that is less than ideal? I hope you realize why a better approach may be to reengineer that one component...

dTal 9y ago
Python has many less-than-ideal features. Do you think we finally got it right, that we will use Python forever, and that the library work of the past decade or so is irreplaceable? "Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to see it as a soap bubble?" -- Alan Perlis
- ehsankia 9y ago
  Just to go from py2 to py3, which was relatively a MUCH smaller change than a whole new language, it's taken a decade and it's still far from over. I don't see how a whole new language would be any better. And it's not like there's a lack of new languages popping up left and right. There's a reason most of them just die out. It's insanely hard to gain critical mass unless you have a huge backer, like a whole organization or company using the language.
- rburhum 9y ago
  At the end of the day, the purpose of why we write software as software engineers is to solve real-world problems, not to have a perfect beautiful language. What you are describing is equivalent to doing an amputation when all you need is antibiotics. There are several things I personally _hate_ about python, but there is a cost-benefit that comes from engineering new things. What new problems are we going to be able to solve by using a new language? If the answer is clear (e.g. imperative programming vs declarative/functional programming let you solve different kind of problems) then it makes sense to do. If certain constructs enable you to completely avoid a recurring mistake (e.g. garbage collection), then it may make sense. But this?!?!? No man, you don't need a new language to fix this.
digitalzombie 9y ago
> I hope you realize why a better approach may be to reengineer that one component... Top comment is proposing basically Erlang or an actor model. As for immutability... well they have to either have it or manage mutable state. That task of engineering is not something to scoff at and I think building a new language or using an existing language with those ability would help. Erlang is not a number crunching language. But there are others such as Pony.

dTal 9y ago

Python has many less-than-ideal features. Do you think we finally got it right, that we will use Python forever, and that the library work of the past decade or so is irreplaceable? "Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to see it as a soap bubble?" -- Alan Perlis

ehsankia 9y ago
Just to go from py2 to py3, which was relatively a MUCH smaller change than a whole new language, it's taken a decade and it's still far from over. I don't see how a whole new language would be any better. And it's not like there's a lack of new languages popping up left and right. There's a reason most of them just die out. It's insanely hard to gain critical mass unless you have a huge backer, like a whole organization or company using the language.
rburhum 9y ago
At the end of the day, the purpose of why we write software as software engineers is to solve real-world problems, not to have a perfect beautiful language. What you are describing is equivalent to doing an amputation when all you need is antibiotics. There are several things I personally _hate_ about python, but there is a cost-benefit that comes from engineering new things. What new problems are we going to be able to solve by using a new language? If the answer is clear (e.g. imperative programming vs declarative/functional programming let you solve different kind of problems) then it makes sense to do. If certain constructs enable you to completely avoid a recurring mistake (e.g. garbage collection), then it may make sense. But this?!?!? No man, you don't need a new language to fix this.

digitalzombie 9y ago

> I hope you realize why a better approach may be to reengineer that one component... Top comment is proposing basically Erlang or an actor model. As for immutability... well they have to either have it or manage mutable state. That task of engineering is not something to scoff at and I think building a new language or using an existing language with those ability would help. Erlang is not a number crunching language. But there are others such as Pony.