Comments on: Python 3 and Growth (or the lack thereof) http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof building complex, innovative software and the business that goes with it Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:49:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: The Snowtide Blog » Blog Archive » Python, Growth, and Sandboxes http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-47 The Snowtide Blog » Blog Archive » Python, Growth, and Sandboxes Mon, 02 Apr 2007 00:19:32 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-47 [...] bland navel-gazing related to selected goings-on at Snowtide. Then, a friend of mine decided to put my most recent post (probably the only potentially inflammatory post I’ve ever written) on reddit, and a variety [...] [...] bland navel-gazing related to selected goings-on at Snowtide. Then, a friend of mine decided to put my most recent post (probably the only potentially inflammatory post I’ve ever written) on reddit, and a variety [...]

]]> By: Doug http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-46 Doug Sun, 01 Apr 2007 17:08:43 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-46 Phillip J. Eby wrote: "Meanwhile, if somebody could come up with a Python-like way of implementing blocks, Guido might actually go with it. It’s just that at this point, he doesn’t want bike-shed discussions about it, or assertions that it must be possible to have such a syntax, as he’s convinced that it’s not possible/practical." Guido is wrong, it is possible. It's been done already: http://boo.codehaus.org/Closures Phillip J. Eby wrote:
“Meanwhile, if somebody could come up with a Python-like way of implementing blocks, Guido might actually go with it. It’s just that at this point, he doesn’t want bike-shed discussions about it, or assertions that it must be possible to have such a syntax, as he’s convinced that it’s not possible/practical.”

Guido is wrong, it is possible. It’s been done already: http://boo.codehaus.org/Closures

]]> By: The Snowtide Blog » Blog Archive » All Aboard the Arc Bandwagon! http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-45 The Snowtide Blog » Blog Archive » All Aboard the Arc Bandwagon! Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:58:01 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-45 [...] The Snowtide Blog building complex, innovative software and the business that goes with it « Python 3 and Growth (or the lack thereof) [...] [...] The Snowtide Blog building complex, innovative software and the business that goes with it « Python 3 and Growth (or the lack thereof) [...]

]]> By: meek http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-43 meek Sun, 01 Apr 2007 10:38:15 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-43 <p>Python is not growing because you want programmable syntax and "esoteric" features? Features that 99% of software developers <strong>should</strong> never use. Let me guess, you have never maintained a project written in a language that supports programmable syntax where geniuses abuse meta-programming where simpler alternatives achieve the same goal.</p> <p>Python has areas it can grow in (e.g performance, better memory management, better profiling/diagnostic tools, unified/consistent library, smarter virtual machine (see PyPy), cruft removal, better/easier extension development in C/C++, etc), but adding new abstractions or syntatic sugar that one in one million programmers <strong>know</strong> how and when to use is not an area that deserves Python's attention. We have Ruby and Perl for that.</p> Python is not growing because you want programmable syntax and “esoteric” features? Features that 99% of software developers should never use. Let me guess, you have never maintained a project written in a language that supports programmable syntax where geniuses abuse meta-programming where simpler alternatives achieve the same goal.

Python has areas it can grow in (e.g performance, better memory management, better profiling/diagnostic tools, unified/consistent library, smarter virtual machine (see PyPy), cruft removal, better/easier extension development in C/C++, etc), but adding new abstractions or syntatic sugar that one in one million programmers know how and when to use is not an area that deserves Python’s attention. We have Ruby and Perl for that.

]]> By: Phillip J. Eby http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-42 Phillip J. Eby Sun, 01 Apr 2007 04:16:54 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-42 <p>Um, so you don't think the "with" statement and coroutines were new features?</p> <p>What about the new metaclass hook that'll be in Python 3.0 (and maybe 2.6)? It's actually a pretty significant step forward for implementing Ruby-like DSL's in Python.</p> <p>Meanwhile, if somebody could come up with a Python-like way of implementing blocks, Guido <em>might</em> actually go with it. It's just that at this point, he doesn't want bike-shed discussions about it, or assertions that it must be possible to have such a syntax, as he's convinced that it's not possible/practical. Someone would have to come up with a concrete proposal that perhaps handles the problem in an entirely new way.</p> Um, so you don’t think the “with” statement and coroutines were new features?

What about the new metaclass hook that’ll be in Python 3.0 (and maybe 2.6)? It’s actually a pretty significant step forward for implementing Ruby-like DSL’s in Python.

Meanwhile, if somebody could come up with a Python-like way of implementing blocks, Guido might actually go with it. It’s just that at this point, he doesn’t want bike-shed discussions about it, or assertions that it must be possible to have such a syntax, as he’s convinced that it’s not possible/practical. Someone would have to come up with a concrete proposal that perhaps handles the problem in an entirely new way.

]]> By: Tim D http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-41 Tim D Sat, 31 Mar 2007 03:46:44 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-41 <p>As fun as new language features are, I think the useful innovations come in the form of new libraries. Nice syntax makes my job more pleasant, but it is the libraries which actually help productivity.</p> As fun as new language features are, I think the useful innovations come in the form of new libraries. Nice syntax makes my job more pleasant, but it is the libraries which actually help productivity.

]]> By: mike bayer http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-40 mike bayer Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:49:14 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-40 <p>to me, i think whats "hot" in a language is when it <em>stops</em> adding new syntaxes and tricks, continues to remove its older and less-polished paradigms and converges on a limited set of absolutely perfect constructs from which I can express anything. Python was exactly the language that had this characteristic which is why I chose it. </p> <p>if you need a constant flow of newly released syntactic sugars and meta-trickery in order to feel like a language will allow you to "solve a problem", that sounds like a need for fewer silver bullets and more target practice.</p> to me, i think whats “hot” in a language is when it stops adding new syntaxes and tricks, continues to remove its older and less-polished paradigms and converges on a limited set of absolutely perfect constructs from which I can express anything. Python was exactly the language that had this characteristic which is why I chose it.

if you need a constant flow of newly released syntactic sugars and meta-trickery in order to feel like a language will allow you to “solve a problem”, that sounds like a need for fewer silver bullets and more target practice.

]]> By: Paul Boddie http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-39 Paul Boddie Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:17:52 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-39 <p>Why do you think languages need to continuously grow new features? Take the current DSL hype as an example: a lot of it is just people who don't know how to write their own parsers and want to use their favourite programming language's parser to prop up their back-of-the-napkin notion of what they should be writing instead of the boilerplate they'd otherwise need to write, all whilst ignoring existing languages designed for the very same purposes. Although I don't doubt that good parser integration with a runtime system would be nice, a lot of the DSL-happy people just want to be able to capitalise on syntactic and semantic side-effects of their favourite language, calling for conveniences that a language designer should resist. (And they could all go off and play with Lisp anyway, right?)</p> <p>It has undoubtedly been said that good designers know that leaving features out can be more important than putting features in. Looking at that Ruby slideshow, one can but wonder whether, after adding things already in Python but then overshooting to include all sorts of other one-off conveniences, Matz will be as conservative as GvR supposedly is today.</p> Why do you think languages need to continuously grow new features? Take the current DSL hype as an example: a lot of it is just people who don’t know how to write their own parsers and want to use their favourite programming language’s parser to prop up their back-of-the-napkin notion of what they should be writing instead of the boilerplate they’d otherwise need to write, all whilst ignoring existing languages designed for the very same purposes. Although I don’t doubt that good parser integration with a runtime system would be nice, a lot of the DSL-happy people just want to be able to capitalise on syntactic and semantic side-effects of their favourite language, calling for conveniences that a language designer should resist. (And they could all go off and play with Lisp anyway, right?)

It has undoubtedly been said that good designers know that leaving features out can be more important than putting features in. Looking at that Ruby slideshow, one can but wonder whether, after adding things already in Python but then overshooting to include all sorts of other one-off conveniences, Matz will be as conservative as GvR supposedly is today.

]]> By: Lonely Lion » Blog Archive » Why Python 3k Shouldn’t Be Ruby (and a mention of Erlang) http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-38 Lonely Lion » Blog Archive » Why Python 3k Shouldn’t Be Ruby (and a mention of Erlang) Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:10:57 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-38 <p>[...] Just a quick response to this write up on the lack of growth in Python 3000. Python 3000 really isn’t the giant sea change that I thought it was going to be. Most of the significant work is under the covers, optimizations that will benefit me without me necessarily knowing it. The author of the above post (I’m sorry, I couldn’t find the author’s name), like me, is a fan of Ruby and Python. I think he wants Python 3000 to take on some of the traits we both love about Ruby (extreme flexibility, cleverness, many ways to do it). I know where he’s coming from, but that wouldn’t be very ‘Pythonic,’ it would be ‘Rubyonic.’ [...]</p> [...] Just a quick response to this write up on the lack of growth in Python 3000. Python 3000 really isn’t the giant sea change that I thought it was going to be. Most of the significant work is under the covers, optimizations that will benefit me without me necessarily knowing it. The author of the above post (I’m sorry, I couldn’t find the author’s name), like me, is a fan of Ruby and Python. I think he wants Python 3000 to take on some of the traits we both love about Ruby (extreme flexibility, cleverness, many ways to do it). I know where he’s coming from, but that wouldn’t be very ‘Pythonic,’ it would be ‘Rubyonic.’ [...]

]]> By: Cezar http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-growth-lack-thereof#comment-37 Cezar Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:02:33 +0000 http://blog.snowtide.com/2007/03/28/python-3in-motion#comment-37 <p>I find it a good thing that Python is not going to change much. When looking to do real work, I look for a few things. The first and foremost is readability, I don't want to spend all day reverse engineering someone else's code. After I move on, my replacement should be able to read my code. While magic is fun, try being the one who has to decipher it.</p> I find it a good thing that Python is not going to change much. When looking to do real work, I look for a few things. The first and foremost is readability, I don’t want to spend all day reverse engineering someone else’s code. After I move on, my replacement should be able to read my code. While magic is fun, try being the one who has to decipher it.

]]>