4 ms·
Well yeah given that some people are still talking about issues from a software release that happened 15 years ago, it would be incredibly unlikely that they'd
by smcl 3y ago
Well yeah given that some people are still talking about issues from a software release that happened 15 years ago, it would be incredibly unlikely that they'd want to repeat that.
What has me a little bit confused is that we're in a thread talking about how Python somehow "flubbed" after 2->3, despite an explosion in popularity during that period culminating in it being arguably the most popular programming language around. And the counterexample is supposed to be Perl, a language which I have enjoyed using but which has fallen off a cliff during the same period, and which has had an even more enormous and self-defeating flub (Perl 6 aka "Raku").
As I said, I understand if Python 3.x was painful for some organizations. I think the suggestion that it was a failure and that Perl showed us the right way to go is a pretty silly one though.
- lizmat 3y agoSaying that the Raku Programming Language is a flub, indicates to me that you do not know it at all. Getting Unicode support right by itself should be an indication that it is better than Python 3 in that respect. And let's not start about the fact that the Raku Programming Language does not have a GIL, allowing true multi-processing features and event handling. https://raku.org https://raku.org
- smcl 3y agoIn terms of execution the development and release of Perl 6 was undeniably a flub. What eventually got released was ultimately a fine language, but it was years late, largely incompatible with existing Perl code (hence the rename) and a sizeable portion of what was left of the Perl community didn't adopt it and stayed on Perl 5.x. Sizeable enough that there are now some rumblings around tidying 5.x up a bit and releasing it as Perl 7.