4 ms·
Funny how things turned out. I still remember this post[1], it was profoundly disappointing to see Guido's way of thinking. Much of the damage was reversed but
by zepolud 11y ago
Funny how things turned out. I still remember this post[1], it was profoundly disappointing to see Guido's way of thinking. Much of the damage was reversed but it still left an indelible impression that there's a lack of vision for what's going to be important if the language is to stay relevant in the future.
[1] http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196 http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196
- mewwts 11y agoI actually find his arguments rather convincing, even though I'm partial to a functional approach to programming, myself.
- tarmil 11y agoSome are still pretty bullshit though. > Why drop lambda? Most Python users are unfamiliar with Lisp or Scheme, so the name is confusing To which I'd reply: Why drop class? Most Python users are unfamiliar with C++ or Java, so the name is confusing.
- JustSomeNobody 11y agoAre they? I'd probably argue just the opposite, that most python developers are very familiar with C++ or (most of them) Java.
- svisser 11y agoRemoving features does not mean there is a lack of vision. The purpose of Python is not the same as, say, Haskell. Design decisions should therefore be viewed as such - it's not about a steady increase of functional features and a decrease of procedural features.
- currysausage 11y agoThere should be one -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it. [1] You may not agree with it, but it's a vision. [1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y agoI remember seeing that post and having it be the first time I thought "huh, does van Rossum know what he's doing" but it certainly wasn't the last.