4 ms·

I agree with some of the things you argue, but I do think it is more a matter of how Python is typically used rather than the language itself. There are quite

by ericra 3y ago

I agree with some of the things you argue, but I do think it is more a matter of how Python is typically used rather than the language itself. There are quite a lot of optimizations that can be done for speed and other metrics in both web and local applications, but people will migrate toward frameworks that instead focus on ease of management and maintenance (like Django). I agree there is a lot of bloat in some cases. All I'm saying is that one has the option use Python in a more "responsible"/efficient way, and there are plenty of projects which do so.

worik 3y ago
> one has the option use Python in a more "responsible"/efficient way That is so true. I wish it was the dominant way people used Python. The lack of backward compatibility is still a bad thing. How can that be avoided by being responsible and/or efficient? I actually have no knowledge of the Python project ruling committee's policy on backward compatibility, I would be interested in those policies, and if they imply a way to stay safe. Saying, like I do, "Just do not use Python" is a bit of a waste of time (will not stop me). It would be nice to caution people: "Avoid this and that Python thing because it is vulnerable to being deprecated and use this and those which are not". I suspect there is no such policy. There are times when being wrong is a good thing....