3 ms·

When it was an in dev project, I felt the consensus on HN was that it was amazing work and a shame that it looked like the steering committee wouldn’t adopt it.

When it was an in dev project, I felt the consensus on HN was that it was amazing work and a shame that it looked like the steering committee wouldn’t adopt it. Now they have and everyone seems to hate it.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
It's the eternal pendulum: - take no risk, and people will blame the project for being static. - take risks, and people will blame the project for being reckless. E.G: - don't adopt a new feature, and your language is old, becoming irrelevant, and a wave of comments will tell you how they just can't use it for X because they don't have it. - break compat, and you will have a horde stating you don't care about users that need stability. You got one comment in this thread talking about "the python treadmill"! And all that for an open source project most don't contribute to and never paid a dime for.
- antupis 3y ago
  World would need one more language which would have very barebone core something like very minimal go or python but strong metaprogramming features so you could expand language if you need.
  - wanderingmind 3y ago
    You are thinking mojo [1] that's claims full python compatibility but can be extended for static typing and high performance scenarios [1] https://www.modular.com/mojo https://www.modular.com/mojo
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      How many lines of mojo have you written?
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    It wouldn't stay barebone, or would stop being used. That's the point.
  - gchamonlive 3y ago
    LISP has been around since the 60s
smcl 3y ago
Well these likely will be entirely different groups of people voicing their opinions at different times. I don't imagine those who were enthusiastic about the project originally have done an about-face and now hate it.
rightbyte 3y ago
It is probably language design enthusiasts push all these backwards incompatibilities into Python because they are not the users of the language. They are a different group from those having their code broken in a never ending incompatibility churn. Well atleast it gives us jobs ...
- gjulianm 3y ago
  I'm one of those happy to see the GIL removed. I've had troubles with the 2->3 transition and more recently with the 3.6 EOL, which wasn't as traumatic but still a little bit troublesome. Despite that, I prefer another transition and being able to actually use parallelism in Python rather than rewriting a huge codebase in a different language, and losing the advantages of Python.
thiht 3y ago
Almost as if there was more than 1 person on the internet
paulryanrogers 3y ago
My guess, it's easier to dismiss the downsides of something likely to fail, and likewise focus on the positives. Now that the unexpected has happened reality demands more consideration for both.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

It's the eternal pendulum: - take no risk, and people will blame the project for being static. - take risks, and people will blame the project for being reckless. E.G: - don't adopt a new feature, and your language is old, becoming irrelevant, and a wave of comments will tell you how they just can't use it for X because they don't have it. - break compat, and you will have a horde stating you don't care about users that need stability. You got one comment in this thread talking about "the python treadmill"! And all that for an open source project most don't contribute to and never paid a dime for.

antupis 3y ago
World would need one more language which would have very barebone core something like very minimal go or python but strong metaprogramming features so you could expand language if you need.
- wanderingmind 3y ago
  You are thinking mojo [1] that's claims full python compatibility but can be extended for static typing and high performance scenarios [1] https://www.modular.com/mojo https://www.modular.com/mojo
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    How many lines of mojo have you written?
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  It wouldn't stay barebone, or would stop being used. That's the point.
- gchamonlive 3y ago
  LISP has been around since the 60s

smcl 3y ago

Well these likely will be entirely different groups of people voicing their opinions at different times. I don't imagine those who were enthusiastic about the project originally have done an about-face and now hate it.

rightbyte 3y ago

It is probably language design enthusiasts push all these backwards incompatibilities into Python because they are not the users of the language. They are a different group from those having their code broken in a never ending incompatibility churn. Well atleast it gives us jobs ...

gjulianm 3y ago
I'm one of those happy to see the GIL removed. I've had troubles with the 2->3 transition and more recently with the 3.6 EOL, which wasn't as traumatic but still a little bit troublesome. Despite that, I prefer another transition and being able to actually use parallelism in Python rather than rewriting a huge codebase in a different language, and losing the advantages of Python.

thiht 3y ago

Almost as if there was more than 1 person on the internet

paulryanrogers 3y ago

My guess, it's easier to dismiss the downsides of something likely to fail, and likewise focus on the positives. Now that the unexpected has happened reality demands more consideration for both.