3 ms·
It's easy to poke at taking a decade to do a major upgrade to a tool. But it's been: a) a smashing success in comparison with Perl5 => Perl6, and b) one doub
by smitty1e 7y ago
It's easy to poke at taking a decade to do a major upgrade to a tool.
But it's been:
a) a smashing success in comparison with Perl5 => Perl6, and
b) one doubts that a future Python3 => Python4 transition would go significantly better.
- lizmat 7y agoIn the end, there was no transition of Perl 5 to Perl 6. Recently it was decided to rename Perl 6 to Raku, freeing up both languages from decades long entanglement. https://raku.org https://raku.org Not sure what this would imply for a future Python 3 -> Python 4 transition.
- smitty1e 7y agoDoing something like offloading the GIL could be a bridge too far, and trigger a new language?
- hhas01 7y ago“Didn’t fuck it up quite as badly as Perl” is hardly a robust defense. Contrast the upgrade cycle of Apple’s Swift. Same amount of user howling, of course, yet Swift has moved forward by 4 breaking releases in the time it’s taken Python to do 1. That designed their upgrade process; tooled, timelined, and taught it appropriately; and ran it to schedule. With Python there was no clear process, no clear schedule, no clear endpoint. They cared about the code but the logistics were an afterthought. They designed, implemented, and tested all their language changes; they should have designed, implemented, and tested their rollout procedures with equal rigor.