10 ms·
There are some arguments to be made they didn't break enough. For example: - I think they bungled the Unicode transition by being too dogmatic and it took the
by oblio 4y ago
There are some arguments to be made they didn't break enough.
For example:
- I think they bungled the Unicode transition by being too dogmatic and it took them a few point releases to include some quality of life improvements for migration that really allowed legacy libraries to transition
- the GIL dependency didn't go away
- typing was added later
Python 3 would have been a huge jump with those changes. Instead, Python 3.0 was very interesting but a major annoyance for limited benefits to 99% of Python app devs.
- eru 4y agoI agree with your points. There's some serious work going on with the GIL these days. And also about immutability and reducing reference counting. > [...] it took them a few point releases to include some quality of life improvements for migration that really allowed legacy libraries to transition I wouldn't hold that against the transition too much. No one gets everything right from the start. About typing: owing to Python's culture, I don't think mainstream Python will be statically typed by default (or even obligatorily) anytime soon.