Python 1.6 alpha 1 released

[James Logajan]

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> 
> James Logajan <JamesL at Lugoj.Com> wrote:
> > Also, how good are you at math? You seem to feel that 5 minutes of "Guido
> > the god's" time is of much more value than that of 1000 knuckle-dragging
> > Neanderthal programmers like myself spending a mere 10 minutes each to
> make
> > sure their code doesn't break. Of course, if we happen to take more than
> 10
> > minutes its our own damn fault I'm sure you'll agree.
> 
> the strange thing here is that there are changes listed on
> that page that are far more difficult to spot and fix, but for
> some reason, neither you or bjorn seem to care.

To be honest, I have so little time these days that I only spot-check this
newsgroup and have not even checked into what is happening with Python's
latest version. The only reason I even read Bjorn's post is because I saw
Guido's announcement and read it and started reading some of the followups.
While Bjorn came across as a bit irritating I had to reluctantly agree that
he had a valid point: one should not change API signatures unless there is
something concretely wrong with them. The benefit/pain ratio for by this
change is close to zero.

> others have politely asked for backwards compatibility on
> this one (which would mean *adding* extra code to handle
> multiple calling syntaxes).  someone will probably come up
> with a patch well before the next alpha, but probably not
> because you guys are flaming away on this newsgroup.

Well then I hope it gets changed due to those polite requests. Hopefully
that old extra code can be patched back in.

> 
> besides, the notion that 10 minutes spent on fixing this will
> outweigh all others costs involved in upgrading to a new
> release of the core interpreter strikes me as rather odd...
> 
> (heck, both of you have probably spent far more than ten
> minutes each writing your posts...)

I'm not sure if you realize that the reference to ten minutes was an
absurdism. If 1.6 includes a number of function signature changes or
semantic changes to existing functionality and not just bug fixes and benign
additions then I know of at least two firms that will be unwilling to use
1.6 or later versions. In fact I may be in the unfortunate position of
getting calls on it even though I am no longer consulting to them. I had
told them that as far as I knew code that worked for version 1.N should in
*general* work for version 1.(N+1) but that all bets were off for N.X to
(N+1).X. It was how I managed to sell Python into them. Ouch; guess I shoud
have read the fine-print.

> 
> > Now how did I get so pissed over this exchange of posts?
> 
> now how come I find your "guido the god" argument to be
> directly offensive?

Because it was meant to be. Glad to see it worked! The motivation for it was
because even though Bjorn directed his post to Guido, you and one or two
others responded. Almost like high priests guarding the temple. Any reason
Guido doesn't post to this newsgroup like he used to?

P.S. I'm not pissed anymore about it. Since it is clear I can't influence
things I have calmed down and will move on to things that I can influence
(to stay the same) or that no one can influence. The pragmatist in me says I
should look for a language that abides by a standard that can not be easily
changed.