4 ms·

"The one that really gets me is the assertion that the moratorium was some ego-driven “python is perfect” statement. That Guido/core dev think the language is “

by zephjc 17y ago

"The one that really gets me is the assertion that the moratorium was some ego-driven “python is perfect” statement. That Guido/core dev think the language is “done” and that no new syntax or constructs are needed." I'm pretty sure anyone who has assumed that didn't bother to read anything Guido has written/co-written on the subject,, including PEP3003.

jnoller 17y ago
I'd believe that, except for at least two of the times I've seen a comment in this vein, they've cited specific words in the PEP. I guess they just skipped the relevant parts.
andreyf 17y ago
As someone who has (had?) this opinion, I think this is a straw-man: my sentiment is that "python syntax is good enough to take a 3 year break from evolution" seems too confident.
- bugs 17y ago
  I'd rather python take a break so libraries can develop/upgrade than go the ruby route where everything is consistently upgraded to the point that no substantial libraries really exist and you are learning a new framework or tool every few months to a year on the ruby speed of light track
  - andreyf 17y ago
    That's a good point. I must be in a mind-changing mood, because that definitely seems like the better option.
  - sailormoon 17y ago
    Are you saying you would prefer the pace of improvement to slow? Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If you don't like the pace of improvement and constant upgrades, here's a handy tip - don't upgrade your software. It will not suddenly stop working. The fact that you're not following this rather obvious strategy indicates there must be something of value in the updates.
- jnoller 17y ago
  Well, not to nit - it's 2 years, which, given an 18 month release cycle typically, is actually a tiny, tiny drop in the pond. Rather than saying "python's syntax is good enough" - we can simply couch it as "there is enough syntax" to last for a two year rest.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    That's not nit-ting at all - 2 and 3 years is a big difference. Was a typo :)

by zephjc 17y ago

jnoller 17y ago

I'd believe that, except for at least two of the times I've seen a comment in this vein, they've cited specific words in the PEP. I guess they just skipped the relevant parts.

andreyf 17y ago

As someone who has (had?) this opinion, I think this is a straw-man: my sentiment is that "python syntax is good enough to take a 3 year break from evolution" seems too confident.

bugs 17y ago
I'd rather python take a break so libraries can develop/upgrade than go the ruby route where everything is consistently upgraded to the point that no substantial libraries really exist and you are learning a new framework or tool every few months to a year on the ruby speed of light track
- andreyf 17y ago
  That's a good point. I must be in a mind-changing mood, because that definitely seems like the better option.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  Are you saying you would prefer the pace of improvement to slow? Isn't that throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If you don't like the pace of improvement and constant upgrades, here's a handy tip - don't upgrade your software. It will not suddenly stop working. The fact that you're not following this rather obvious strategy indicates there must be something of value in the updates.
jnoller 17y ago
Well, not to nit - it's 2 years, which, given an 18 month release cycle typically, is actually a tiny, tiny drop in the pond. Rather than saying "python's syntax is good enough" - we can simply couch it as "there is enough syntax" to last for a two year rest.
- andreyf 17y ago
  That's not nit-ting at all - 2 and 3 years is a big difference. Was a typo :)