4 ms·

Python probably passed that point about 10 years ago. I'm not trying to be cynical, I've thought this for a while. At this point, I just wish the best to Python

by jerf 5y ago

Python probably passed that point about 10 years ago. I'm not trying to be cynical, I've thought this for a while. At this point, I just wish the best to Python's new features because the language is well past "simple" and it's been many years since that was a thing that was even possible to save. I've watched new and inexperienced programmers trying to learn full, modern Python up close and personal. (That is, they were trying to get into real code bases that were using the many features in Python, not that we were in a teaching space incrementally introducing things.) Anyone who has done that in the last ten years knows it's not simple anymore.

formerly_proven 5y ago
Personally I consider 3.2 to be the first usable version of Python 3, though that obviously already had a very large and complex data and language model. New in 3.3: - yield from: I'm okay with this - PEP 420 / namespace packages: I think this is/was the best compromise, but this remains a fundamentally ugly topic for something that is sort-of necessary to have - raise from None: This is okay for library code - __qualname__: It's a mess. It's not like I'm against having it, but this is a corner of the language that practically invites you to hang yourself one way or another. - importlib: It's better than the previous iteration but this package was and still is a mess. Again, lots of this is due to legacy aka "the other packaging packages". New in 3.4 - asyncio beta (no coroutine syntax yet): While coroutines are highly useful, asyncio and Python coroutines simply are not good. This is the beginning of the badness. - pathlib: Ok! - enum: Ok! New in 3.5 - async def, await: This is the release that really set colored functions in stone for Python. - "@" operator: I've never used this once I think, but that's because I don't write math code in Python. If I did, I think I'd like it, so I'm okay with this. - type hints: Another oof moment New in 3.6 - f-strings: Yay! - dict now ordered: Yay! - async generators and such: Again, I think colored functions are a big blunder, but if you have them, you need this. - Variable annotations New in 3.7 - PEP 563: Type annotations can be turned into quoted annotations without a syntactic change through __future__ import. - contextvars: "thread-locals for coroutines" - PEP 562: Added the Python 2 misfeature back where Python 2 interpreted __get__ and __set__ on modules - Typing becomes part of the core language, I think this is when you could start writing things like "list[int]" (instead of "typing.List[int]"). New in 3.8 - := Yuck - "Positional-only parameters" because the simplified CPython API for defining functions has this, so ... Python code needs that as well? Wot? - More typing New in 3.9 - More typing New in 3.10 - And even more typing - Pattern matching
- jerf 5y ago
  "I'm okay with this" I pulled this out of your post because it's something I think about a lot of the individual changes. Individually, they generally make sense. It's just that the sum total of all the individual sensible things is a large mess, getting larger every release. I first used Python in the 20th century, and have clocked many thousands of hours with it overall. Now I mostly program in Go. (Actually, even after ~7 years part-time professional with Go, I'm not sure which I've used more yet! I may still technically have more time with Python. If I do, though, I'm close to the crossover.) Occasionally, I miss iterators, and with Go getting generics it's probably my #1 ask in Go. Other than that, though... I just can't help but notice that I don't actually miss that many features of Python very often. I miss Haskell features, I sometimes miss Rust features, every once in a while I'll miss something more exotic like an Erlang feature, but I almost never think "gee, I really miss this Python feature". It isn't that I can't see where I'd use them if they exist, I just don't sit there pining for them all the time. I consider this a big data point. I should also point out I'm talking about subconscious inclinations, it's not like I'm setting out and daily disciplining myself to not miss Python features. It's just a thing that happens or doesn't. YMMV. I'm probably more often grateful for a missing Python feature than I'm missing it (e.g., it's actually kinda nice after a certain scale to know what "x.y" does, rather than have to go resolving down an arbitrarily-complicated chain of classes, inheritance, method overrides, etc.).
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  its quite fun to see python api generated from C/C++ libraries. They always go ham on the type specification, making the resulting code unrecognizable as Python.

by jerf 5y ago

formerly_proven 5y ago

Personally I consider 3.2 to be the first usable version of Python 3, though that obviously already had a very large and complex data and language model. New in 3.3: - yield from: I'm okay with this - PEP 420 / namespace packages: I think this is/was the best compromise, but this remains a fundamentally ugly topic for something that is sort-of necessary to have - raise from None: This is okay for library code - __qualname__: It's a mess. It's not like I'm against having it, but this is a corner of the language that practically invites you to hang yourself one way or another. - importlib: It's better than the previous iteration but this package was and still is a mess. Again, lots of this is due to legacy aka "the other packaging packages". New in 3.4 - asyncio beta (no coroutine syntax yet): While coroutines are highly useful, asyncio and Python coroutines simply are not good. This is the beginning of the badness. - pathlib: Ok! - enum: Ok! New in 3.5 - async def, await: This is the release that really set colored functions in stone for Python. - "@" operator: I've never used this once I think, but that's because I don't write math code in Python. If I did, I think I'd like it, so I'm okay with this. - type hints: Another oof moment New in 3.6 - f-strings: Yay! - dict now ordered: Yay! - async generators and such: Again, I think colored functions are a big blunder, but if you have them, you need this. - Variable annotations New in 3.7 - PEP 563: Type annotations can be turned into quoted annotations without a syntactic change through __future__ import. - contextvars: "thread-locals for coroutines" - PEP 562: Added the Python 2 misfeature back where Python 2 interpreted __get__ and __set__ on modules - Typing becomes part of the core language, I think this is when you could start writing things like "list[int]" (instead of "typing.List[int]"). New in 3.8 - := Yuck - "Positional-only parameters" because the simplified CPython API for defining functions has this, so ... Python code needs that as well? Wot? - More typing New in 3.9 - More typing New in 3.10 - And even more typing - Pattern matching

jerf 5y ago
"I'm okay with this" I pulled this out of your post because it's something I think about a lot of the individual changes. Individually, they generally make sense. It's just that the sum total of all the individual sensible things is a large mess, getting larger every release. I first used Python in the 20th century, and have clocked many thousands of hours with it overall. Now I mostly program in Go. (Actually, even after ~7 years part-time professional with Go, I'm not sure which I've used more yet! I may still technically have more time with Python. If I do, though, I'm close to the crossover.) Occasionally, I miss iterators, and with Go getting generics it's probably my #1 ask in Go. Other than that, though... I just can't help but notice that I don't actually miss that many features of Python very often. I miss Haskell features, I sometimes miss Rust features, every once in a while I'll miss something more exotic like an Erlang feature, but I almost never think "gee, I really miss this Python feature". It isn't that I can't see where I'd use them if they exist, I just don't sit there pining for them all the time. I consider this a big data point. I should also point out I'm talking about subconscious inclinations, it's not like I'm setting out and daily disciplining myself to not miss Python features. It's just a thing that happens or doesn't. YMMV. I'm probably more often grateful for a missing Python feature than I'm missing it (e.g., it's actually kinda nice after a certain scale to know what "x.y" does, rather than have to go resolving down an arbitrarily-complicated chain of classes, inheritance, method overrides, etc.).
cuteboy19 5y ago
its quite fun to see python api generated from C/C++ libraries. They always go ham on the type specification, making the resulting code unrecognizable as Python.