4 ms·
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" s
by 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 agoI'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 agoThat's a good point. I must be in a mind-changing mood, because that definitely seems like the better option.
- sailormoon 17y agoAre 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 agoWell, 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 agoThat's not nit-ting at all - 2 and 3 years is a big difference. Was a typo :)