4 ms·
I think some modular approach could have solved the incompatiblity issue, such as "from future import ...". Shorthands could have been invented to define everyt
by ktpsns 6y ago
I think some modular approach could have solved the incompatiblity issue, such as "from future import ...". Shorthands could have been invented to define everything in a single line.
Perl5 has similar flags ("use strict"), and Racket brings it even further to define the whole fucking language of the rest of the file ("#lang racket/gui"). Having the language being choosable by the user is against the "zen of python", I guess. In other words: Such an attemp does not feel "pythonic".
- orf 6y agoFor some syntactical sugar, like print-function, sure. But there are more fundamental changes that couldn’t be papered over.
- jamiesonbecker 6y agoFundamental changes shouldn't have been papered over by calling the new language Python, as it was a fundamentally different language at that point.
- orf 6y agoNo, it’s the same language but with different semantics around a specific type. That’s not a different language and code can co-exist with a bit of thought.
- JasonFruit 6y agoEvery language goes through this at some point in its development: flaws that limit future development have to be fixed. Should every language rename itself and split its community at that point? That seems like an extreme response to a common problem.
- Chris2048 6y ago> Should every language rename itself and split its community at that point? yes. If breaking, fundamental changes are common, that's a problem.
- JasonFruit 6y agoThat people can make an initial plan that is self-consistent, logical, and foresees and provides for all future use-cases is a basic tenet of waterfall-style development. The history of software engineering does not uphold that principle. Why would it be different for language designers?
- Chris2048 6y agoJust because an unforeseen issue arises, doesn't mean you need to introduce a breaking change right away.
- djur 6y agoThe "new language" is called Python 3.
- a1369209993 6y agoYes, yes it is. And, like "Perl 6" and to a lesser extent "C++", that name is misleading (and therefore bad), because there is already a different language called "Python" (respectively "Perl", "C"), with significant superficial similarities that it could be confused with.
- lizmat 6y agoPlease note that the misleading part of Perl 6 has been fixed by renaming it to the Raku Programming Language (https://raku.org https://raku.org using the #rakulang tag on social media).