6 ms·
> These features have one thing in common: they're only useful for prototype-quality throwaway code, if at all. As a matter of practice: the python community d
by ajross 1y ago
> These features have one thing in common: they're only useful for prototype-quality throwaway code, if at all.
As a matter of practice: the python community disagrees strongly. And the python community ate the world.
It's fine to have an opinion, but you're not going to change python.
- Philpax 1y agoThe existence of several type-checkers and Astral's largely-successful efforts to build tooling that pulls Python out of its muck seems to suggest otherwise. Better things are possible, and I'm hoping that higher average quality of Python code is one of those things.
- adsharma 1y agoThat assumes python is one monolithic thing and everyone agrees what it is. True, the view you express here has strong support in the community and possibly in the steering committee. But there are differing ideas on what python is and why it's successful.
- ajross 1y ago> That assumes python is one monolithic thing and everyone agrees what it is. It's exactly the opposite! I'm saying that python is BIG AND DIVERSE and that attempts like SPy to invent a new (monolithic!) subset language that everyone should use instead are doomed, because it won't meet the needs of all the yahoos out there doing weird stuff the SPy authors didn't think was important. It's fine to have "differing ideas on what python is", but if those ideas don't match those of all of the community, and not just what you think are the good parts, it's not really about what "python" is, is it?