Python Moratorium: Let's think about this | Hacker News Reader

Python Moratorium: Let's think about this

jessenoller.com

54 pointssaturdayplace20 comments

I'm detecting some patterns in language-related blog posts lately:

* Python: What we're doing is correct! Can't you see that it's correct? Just look at the gleaming correctness before you!

* Perl 5: We're not dead. We're actually growing by a number of metrics. Why do you keep saying we're dying?

* Perl 6: We're Perl! Well, actually, we're another language in the "Perl family" ... but we're still called "Perl"! Actually, we're more Perlish than Perl. But also less so due to various improvements! Here, just look at the tutoria... hm... umm ... see you on IRC!

* Scheme: Check out my new implementation!

* Ruby: [empty]

* Lua: Wait. We're supposed to be blogging?

I dunno, seems lately that most of what I hear from the Perl and Python communities consists of "did any of you read these articles you're commenting on?" And, sadly, the answer is no, nobody bothered much with the reading or the comprehension; it's all "LOL PERL 6" and "LOL PYTHON 3 IS JUST LIKE PERL 6" drivel.

Actually, the intention was to add to the rationale which spurred me to help author the PEP. That's ok though, it's still a correct decision. ;)

> That's ok though, it's still a correct decision.

It's a convincing article.

I still don't know if I would have made that decision if it were mine to make, but now I understand and sympathize with it.

I don't mean to single you out, Jesse. I realize it takes guts to put your opinions online publicly.

Nah, it's all good - I've seen the trend too.

"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.

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.

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

That's a good point. I must be in a mind-changing mood, because that definitely seems like the better option.

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.

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.

That's not nit-ting at all - 2 and 3 years is a big difference. Was a typo :)

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.

I think that the Python moratorium has a very good chance of being Python's Perl 6 moment. It's just to easy to lose mindshare. People complain about new being unstable, whether strategically or technically, but a lot of them still like new.

I just like to feel like something is alive.

This is Python we're talking about, not ADA. Both have their place.

The moratorium is only on syntax and builtins, not the stdlib, nor the interpreter. I don't see how this can be a "perl 6 moment" when we have multiple, functioning versions, a plethora of alternative interpreters, etc.

I would more willing to hear the Python 3 is Python's Perl 6 moment, except we actually shipped a near-production ready version already, which while slow, is seeing gradual adoption.

The thing about having a "Perl 6 moment" is that there needs to be something better than Perl 6, and Perl 6 needs to suck.

Python neither sucks nor has any competitors that are obviously better. And of course there's that nice feature that Python has that Perl never had in any version - the ability to read code twice.

> ... of course there's that nice feature that Python has that Perl never had in any version....

I expect better from HN comments.

"I've tried, repeatedly, but I still find sigils difficult to understand" is fine.

"I prefer postfix method calls to infix or prefix symbolic operators" is fine.

"I've never figured out how to use Perl's copious testing libraries or static analysis tools to write maintainable code" is honest.

"I believe that consistent indentation is a primary factor in long-term maintainability" starts to trip my hogwash-o-meter.

> Python's Perl 6 moment

What does that mean?

Look at the growth of the CPAN and Perl related projects in general since the Perl 6 announcement (a couple of months after Guido announced he was going to BeOpen to work, in part, on Python 3000).

Python would benefit greatly from a minor revolution like Perl had: http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/2009/07/milestones-in-the-...

If a lot of them like new, then why haven't they switched over to python3? You can hardly fault the python core devs for wanting to wait until users have actually caught up with the language.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com