4 ms·
Perhaps :) That’s not a hill I’m willing to die on but I agree with the positives from your list. And the small handful of times I’ve used walrus have been ni
by jsmeaton 6y ago
Perhaps :)
That’s not a hill I’m willing to die on but I agree with the positives from your list.
And the small handful of times I’ve used walrus have been nice, but not game changing.
- musingsole 6y agoLanguage features of this type should be nice and not game changing. It's how spoken word languages evolve. If every change was game-changing, it'd only be a few mutations until a dialect became a language in its own right. In reality, you get countless dialects frequently with features that eventually die off and new languages rarely and only in the aggregate.
- GeorgeTirebiter 6y agoSeems to me the 'sweet spot' for a language is a careful balance of continuing to evolve - slowly, carefully - and to not become so large as to 'not fit into one head'. Python3.9 is not yet at the 'too big for one head'; but 3.xx could be. Perhaps old-style features need to be removed, and only available via some sort of "from __past__ import old-feature-set"
- neolog 6y agoThey could just deprecate without removing.
- musingsole 6y agoIt's hard for me to separate a language from what it is used to accomplish, and from that perspective, Python has been far too large to fit in one head for a good long time. Perhaps that is why I don't find any compulsion for language purity.
- neolog 6y ago> too large to fit in one head is it? I don't think the core language is that big. The libraries are big of course.
- pansa2 6y agoAn example of core language complexity: if asked, could you explain what all of these do? https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1280988785841278976 https://twitter.com/raymondh/status/1280988785841278976