4 ms·

> But it comes off as a rant without a real suggestion. How exactly is that a rant? It's an exploration about a design decision / mistake that was carried thr

> But it comes off as a rant without a real suggestion. How exactly is that a rant? It's an exploration about a design decision / mistake that was carried through Python for 25 years and has left an impact. There is no complaint and there is no suggestion for Python. As I said in the early paragraph it's something that's interesting for people that are interested in language design.

ZenoArrow 12y ago
It's a rant because the solution was ill defined. If the title of the article is 'The Python I Would Like To See', you should expect more detail of how to implement the solution.
- the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
  I hope it is valid to describe a situation and voice a wish for a situation that would look different without having to provide a concrete step towards that. The removal of the slot system would be a backwards incompatible change with very little direct benefit for developers. It could be interesting as a general goal for a hypothetical Python 4 but I do not believe it makes any sense to discuss this as anything more than a hypothetical case for the next few years.
  - ZenoArrow 12y ago
    Yes it's valid, but it's still a rant. Rants can have benefits too, but solutions are much more constructive.
rdtsc 12y ago
If it seems they haven't actually read the article past the title, it is safe to discard their comment and don't even consider it.
pixelmonkey 12y ago
I think I mis-spoke. I didn't really mean "rant", I meant "nit-pick". It's akin to the frequent complaints I hear about `len()` being a function rather than a method on `list` and `str` types. This internal detail you focused on solves real problems; it's also a wart internally. OK, we get it. It's also not a hugely important wart, IMO. I don't think it's holding Python back. But, like I said, I think the article was an interesting walkthrough of the internals. I enjoyed it overall :)
- hyperpape 12y ago
  I think this is a bad comparison, because len() vs. foo.len() is just syntax, and isolated syntax at that. It's valuable to get syntax right, but this particular decision doesn't really impact anything outside of itself. In contrast, the article suggests that the implementation of method dispatch slots (not __slots__!) actually constraints the optimizations you can make. I get that you're trying to suggest that they're both small, but I think that this analogy only serves to confuse things.

ZenoArrow 12y ago

It's a rant because the solution was ill defined. If the title of the article is 'The Python I Would Like To See', you should expect more detail of how to implement the solution.

the_mitsuhiko 12y ago
I hope it is valid to describe a situation and voice a wish for a situation that would look different without having to provide a concrete step towards that. The removal of the slot system would be a backwards incompatible change with very little direct benefit for developers. It could be interesting as a general goal for a hypothetical Python 4 but I do not believe it makes any sense to discuss this as anything more than a hypothetical case for the next few years.
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  Yes it's valid, but it's still a rant. Rants can have benefits too, but solutions are much more constructive.

rdtsc 12y ago

If it seems they haven't actually read the article past the title, it is safe to discard their comment and don't even consider it.

pixelmonkey 12y ago

I think I mis-spoke. I didn't really mean "rant", I meant "nit-pick". It's akin to the frequent complaints I hear about `len()` being a function rather than a method on `list` and `str` types. This internal detail you focused on solves real problems; it's also a wart internally. OK, we get it. It's also not a hugely important wart, IMO. I don't think it's holding Python back. But, like I said, I think the article was an interesting walkthrough of the internals. I enjoyed it overall :)

hyperpape 12y ago
I think this is a bad comparison, because len() vs. foo.len() is just syntax, and isolated syntax at that. It's valuable to get syntax right, but this particular decision doesn't really impact anything outside of itself. In contrast, the article suggests that the implementation of method dispatch slots (not __slots__!) actually constraints the optimizations you can make. I get that you're trying to suggest that they're both small, but I think that this analogy only serves to confuse things.