5 ms·

Great way to kill the momentum and innovation. The only reason Ruby is still relevant today is directly due to its dynamism and continuous evolution. If Python

Great way to kill the momentum and innovation. The only reason Ruby is still relevant today is directly due to its dynamism and continuous evolution. If Python declares a moratorium, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

bendotc 17y ago
I disagree. The last thing Python needs right now is to make Python 3.x even more different from the 2.x line. As a strategic move, I think it makes a lot of sense to stabilize 3.x and wait for it to gain momentum before going on to more syntax changes. Though I have to say, I'm quite disappointed that PEP 380 is getting left behind, since I find the alternative to be pretty ugly and heavy-weight.
jacobolus 17y ago
Basically, this means not adding any new language features for about 2-3 years, instead focusing on making improvements to the standard library, and to performance and correctness of the core. The moratorium sounds like a great idea to me: it will help reassure people who are porting their code from 2.x to 3.1 that they won’t have to make too many more changes to keep their stuff working on 3.2 & 3.3, and other implementations (Jython, IronPython, PyPy(?)) will be able to catch up to 3.x features.
jshen 17y ago
ruby is having a very hard time getting people to switch to 1.9 Stability is important to a whole lot of people, but it is a delicate balancing act.
- costan 17y ago
  That's because Ruby folks don't work on that as a community. We're all working on our pet projects, instead of helping get ruby1.9 into the popular OSes -- there's no one-click installer for Windows or OSX, and packages for various linux distros are lagging. (Yes, I'm pointing the finger at myself too... if only I could stop wasting my time on random stuff, I could spend a bit of time each week helping out.)
costan 17y ago
Haha, I was just thinking this rocks for Ruby and other upcoming languages. If people don't have new Python features to play with, they can spend the time learning new languages. I hope the proposal gets accepted, because I don't like python (personal taste, not trying to start a flame war) and I hope it stops showing up in all the systems I work with.
- enneff 17y ago
  "If people don't have new Python features to play with, they can spend the time learning new languages." I'll just spend the time mastering Python, confident that it has a future worth investing in. ;-)
  - costan 17y ago
    Oops, got below 0 for the first time. Sorry, I was joking a bit, didn't mean to be offensive. I didn't mean to offend python (this time). I think learning different languages helps the mind, and I try to experiment with at least 1 new language every year. So I was thinking if more people have time to learn new languages, everyone will be better off. I hope this makes more sense.
njharman 17y ago
There's more to momentum and innovation than piling on more syntax. In fact putting restrictions on things (such as you can't add syntax or break backwords compatibility) can engender more innovation than letting people do whatever.

bendotc 17y ago

I disagree. The last thing Python needs right now is to make Python 3.x even more different from the 2.x line. As a strategic move, I think it makes a lot of sense to stabilize 3.x and wait for it to gain momentum before going on to more syntax changes. Though I have to say, I'm quite disappointed that PEP 380 is getting left behind, since I find the alternative to be pretty ugly and heavy-weight.

jacobolus 17y ago

Basically, this means not adding any new language features for about 2-3 years, instead focusing on making improvements to the standard library, and to performance and correctness of the core. The moratorium sounds like a great idea to me: it will help reassure people who are porting their code from 2.x to 3.1 that they won’t have to make too many more changes to keep their stuff working on 3.2 & 3.3, and other implementations (Jython, IronPython, PyPy(?)) will be able to catch up to 3.x features.

jshen 17y ago

ruby is having a very hard time getting people to switch to 1.9 Stability is important to a whole lot of people, but it is a delicate balancing act.

costan 17y ago
That's because Ruby folks don't work on that as a community. We're all working on our pet projects, instead of helping get ruby1.9 into the popular OSes -- there's no one-click installer for Windows or OSX, and packages for various linux distros are lagging. (Yes, I'm pointing the finger at myself too... if only I could stop wasting my time on random stuff, I could spend a bit of time each week helping out.)

costan 17y ago

Haha, I was just thinking this rocks for Ruby and other upcoming languages. If people don't have new Python features to play with, they can spend the time learning new languages. I hope the proposal gets accepted, because I don't like python (personal taste, not trying to start a flame war) and I hope it stops showing up in all the systems I work with.

enneff 17y ago
"If people don't have new Python features to play with, they can spend the time learning new languages." I'll just spend the time mastering Python, confident that it has a future worth investing in. ;-)
- costan 17y ago
  Oops, got below 0 for the first time. Sorry, I was joking a bit, didn't mean to be offensive. I didn't mean to offend python (this time). I think learning different languages helps the mind, and I try to experiment with at least 1 new language every year. So I was thinking if more people have time to learn new languages, everyone will be better off. I hope this makes more sense.

njharman 17y ago

There's more to momentum and innovation than piling on more syntax. In fact putting restrictions on things (such as you can't add syntax or break backwords compatibility) can engender more innovation than letting people do whatever.