3 ms·
> Python and Ruby have, I think, reasonably chosen to have slower simpler implementations so that they are able to nimbly respond to user needs and evolve the l
by saghm 5y ago
> Python and Ruby have, I think, reasonably chosen to have slower simpler implementations so that they are able to nimbly respond to user needs and evolve the language without needing massive funding from giant corporations in order to support an implementation. (See also: JavaScript)
I'm not really sure I buy that argument for why JavaScript evolved slowly for a while. It seems more likely to me that it was due to the combination of basically being required to be 100% backwards compatible (no one making a browser wants to be the only one who doesn't work for a certain website), having no single canonical implementation (which means that all the common browsers would have to agree on a spec for something to be added or changed), and not really being used in the server context widely before Node. Python and Ruby both sacrificed backwards compatibility at times in their history, and both had one central implementation which others tended to draw from, so it was easier to get changes made.
- munificent 5y agoAgreed, that isn't the reason JavaScript in particular was essentially motionless for about a decade. As you note, that was largely due to political factors and disagreement about language direction among the various competing implementers. But compared to say Smalltalk, Scheme, and Lisp, I think Ruby and Python have been able to evolve incrementally in part because of their simpler more hackable implementations.
- igouy 5y agoSimilarly why shouldn't we think that business reasons left Smalltalk motionless after release from ParcPlace? So traits for Squeak but not the commercial Smalltalks.