4 ms·

And large improvements to the language could result in millions of dollars of productivity losses! :-) I'm not a big fan of "Now this language has gotten popul

by _tom_ 6y ago

And large improvements to the language could result in millions of dollars of productivity losses! :-) I'm not a big fan of "Now this language has gotten popular, let's add all the features to it that made our other language so unpopular."

huffmsa 6y ago
It taking 10 years to transition from 2 to 3 wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Definitely concerns that more hands could make another Angular, which had 2 incompatible branches, with one going from v2 to v11 in 5 years.
- josephg 6y ago
  > It taking 10 years to transition from 2 to 3 wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The python3 interpreter could have been largely (or completely) source-compatible with python2 code. They could have done it rust2018 style - where source code files can opt in to a newer parser, and in return get access to the new features. Then the whole python3 drama would have been avoided. MacOS still ships with a python 2.7 interpreter because of all that nonsense. But if they only had 2 full-time people working on it, no wonder they didn't have the man power to do the transition any other way. Disappointing.
  - my123 6y ago
    Which puts a: > WARNING: Python 2.7 is not recommended. > This version is included in macOS for compatibility with legacy software. > Future versions of macOS will not include Python 2.7. > Instead, it is recommended that you transition to using 'python3' from within Terminal. banner on launch nowadays...
    - josephg 6y ago
      Right; none of this should be necessary. I don’t need an old version of my C compiler in order to compile old C files. Rust made breaking changes to their language and yet a modern rust compiler will happily compile the older 2015 rust syntax. Python could have gone down the same road; but I suppose all of python’s corporate users chose to fight python compatibility changes locally rather than donate time / money fixing python itself.
rtpg 6y ago
Everything about language maintenance isn't "just" adding features. There's actual bug fixes and a bunch of other stuff that take a lot of time. Not to mention that Python's standard library is relatively large.
- roenxi 6y ago
  All the evidence is 2 Full Time Developers are equal to the workload. People aren't using Python because it is going to be good enough in the future, it is good enough now. If more people are working on it full time, we'll just get more Walrus Operators. A very hypothetical gain at cost of an increasingly complex core language.
  - more-coffee 6y ago
    I always have been and always will be against the walrus operator. I don't care how much anyone tries me to sell it on its elegance. There's just no _need_. It's already the #1 example of wtfpython https://github.com/satwikkansal/wtfpython#-first-things-first- https://github.com/satwikkansal/wtfpython#-first-things-firs... /rant. Those kind of features are going to keep coming anyway, I'm afraid.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      It's the #1 example of wtfpython for no good reason. It's like someone used to PHP or JS style coercion, doing: 1 + "2", getting a type error and asking "wtf python?". The walrus operator is obvious, and very handy in many cases. The capture part of the pattern matching PEP, on the other hand, has been designed shodilly.
    - Skunkleton 6y ago
      I don’t like the walrus operator personally, but wtfpython has it wrong. It’s simply syntax for an expression that includes a binding. It parses like any other expression, and is completely unsurprising.
dash2 6y ago
Improvements ≠ new features.
cosmodisk 6y ago
It's not about going million miles an hour. The safe speed can be used even if there's 200 people. But the commenter above has a good point: tons of businesses and billions are linked to a product with almost no workforce behind it. The same is with many other OSS: tons of value and no money to those who maintain/create.
- visarga 6y ago
  If we want to solve this problem we need to start with a way to assign credit and identify neglected parts of the stack. After we have awareness we can find the funds.
  - cosmodisk 6y ago
    Not necessarily. One can be done without another,but it would obviously help if there's some roadmap that can then be shown to the potential sponsors. Getting funding is ultimately a sales function and I'm sure any meaningful project would have enough dough to run on if such function would exist.

by _tom_ 6y ago

huffmsa 6y ago

It taking 10 years to transition from 2 to 3 wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Definitely concerns that more hands could make another Angular, which had 2 incompatible branches, with one going from v2 to v11 in 5 years.

josephg 6y ago
> It taking 10 years to transition from 2 to 3 wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The python3 interpreter could have been largely (or completely) source-compatible with python2 code. They could have done it rust2018 style - where source code files can opt in to a newer parser, and in return get access to the new features. Then the whole python3 drama would have been avoided. MacOS still ships with a python 2.7 interpreter because of all that nonsense. But if they only had 2 full-time people working on it, no wonder they didn't have the man power to do the transition any other way. Disappointing.
- my123 6y ago
  Which puts a: > WARNING: Python 2.7 is not recommended. > This version is included in macOS for compatibility with legacy software. > Future versions of macOS will not include Python 2.7. > Instead, it is recommended that you transition to using 'python3' from within Terminal. banner on launch nowadays...
  - josephg 6y ago
    Right; none of this should be necessary. I don’t need an old version of my C compiler in order to compile old C files. Rust made breaking changes to their language and yet a modern rust compiler will happily compile the older 2015 rust syntax. Python could have gone down the same road; but I suppose all of python’s corporate users chose to fight python compatibility changes locally rather than donate time / money fixing python itself.

rtpg 6y ago

Everything about language maintenance isn't "just" adding features. There's actual bug fixes and a bunch of other stuff that take a lot of time. Not to mention that Python's standard library is relatively large.

roenxi 6y ago
All the evidence is 2 Full Time Developers are equal to the workload. People aren't using Python because it is going to be good enough in the future, it is good enough now. If more people are working on it full time, we'll just get more Walrus Operators. A very hypothetical gain at cost of an increasingly complex core language.
- more-coffee 6y ago
  I always have been and always will be against the walrus operator. I don't care how much anyone tries me to sell it on its elegance. There's just no _need_. It's already the #1 example of wtfpython https://github.com/satwikkansal/wtfpython#-first-things-first- https://github.com/satwikkansal/wtfpython#-first-things-firs... /rant. Those kind of features are going to keep coming anyway, I'm afraid.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    It's the #1 example of wtfpython for no good reason. It's like someone used to PHP or JS style coercion, doing: 1 + "2", getting a type error and asking "wtf python?". The walrus operator is obvious, and very handy in many cases. The capture part of the pattern matching PEP, on the other hand, has been designed shodilly.
  - Skunkleton 6y ago
    I don’t like the walrus operator personally, but wtfpython has it wrong. It’s simply syntax for an expression that includes a binding. It parses like any other expression, and is completely unsurprising.

dash2 6y ago

Improvements ≠ new features.

cosmodisk 6y ago

It's not about going million miles an hour. The safe speed can be used even if there's 200 people. But the commenter above has a good point: tons of businesses and billions are linked to a product with almost no workforce behind it. The same is with many other OSS: tons of value and no money to those who maintain/create.

visarga 6y ago
If we want to solve this problem we need to start with a way to assign credit and identify neglected parts of the stack. After we have awareness we can find the funds.
- cosmodisk 6y ago
  Not necessarily. One can be done without another,but it would obviously help if there's some roadmap that can then be shown to the potential sponsors. Getting funding is ultimately a sales function and I'm sure any meaningful project would have enough dough to run on if such function would exist.