5 ms·
I just hope he (and his successors) maintain the same uncompromisingly critical approach when it comes to adding features to the language.. I think the lack of
by imakesnowflakes 11y ago
I just hope he (and his successors) maintain the same uncompromisingly critical approach when it comes to adding features to the language..
I think the lack of some things like this, is a sort of reminder to the programmer that says, "hey you, you are writing Python. Not Haskell. Do not go that way because we don't have stuff to deal with what you may find further down that road".
Nothing ruins a language like adding a bunch of poorly thought out half baked features, that does not fit well with the rest of it...
- boothead 11y agoAnd yet a language has to evolve or become obsolete...
- toyg 11y agoI would argue that the really necessary evolution is often in implementation facilities, rather than core language constructs. C++ has evolved more than most, but people who don't choose C++ do it mostly because of other considerations. You could have the most functional C++ version ever, and still people would not use it for simple web apps.
- ubernostrum 11y agoWhich is not the same as "a language must evolve into my preferred design or become obsolete". Python has made it through years of criticism from people who misunderstand Guido's stance on FP in Python (and before that from people who disliked his stance on tail call optimization) without being obsoleted by pure FP languages.
- afarrell 11y agoWhich, like apoptosis, is eventually a good thing.