Language change (was RE: iterators (was: python-dev summary))

[Grant Griffin]

Tim Peters wrote:
> 
> [Donn Cave]
...
> > Yet the development environment around Python has changed in recent
> > years, and I guess that's where we came in.
> 
> What changed is that moving to SourceForge multiplied the number of people
> who *could* commit changes from one (Guido) to dozens (Guido's army of
> mindless drones).  Most of the flurry of changes checked in for 2.0 were
> things Guido wanted for years, but didn't have the personal bandwidth to do
> all by himself.

OK, I've enjoyed and appreciated almost all of those--thanks!.

But obviously that creates a kind of pressure.  (Put, conversely, I
guess new features previously had to be _really_ useful for Guido to
find time to add them.)

> > One thing I think would be worth some thought is a positive expression
> > of what we're thinking when we say "no thanks".  I mean, opposition
> > to features is the negative complement to a positive idea about Python,
> > about its elegance and power the way it is.  We don't get that out as
> > often or as articulately as maybe we could.

Guilty as charged!  If my implied compliment wasn't received here,
consider it given!  I have said this before: Genius is the art of
simplicity, and Python is a work of great simplicity.

We in the Peanut Gallery fuss about new features the way folks would
fuss if Bach suddenly decided to add some notes to "Tocatta and Fugue in
D Minor".  (Then again, nothing's perfect. <wink>)

> You know that we're heading towared 100 rejected patches on SoureForge?
> That's heading on 100 ideas people wanted badly enough to actually do the
> hard work of implementing them (and that's impressive!) -- but they got
> tossed in the bit bucket anyway.  People who think the floodgates have
> opened are simply wrong about that (although a couple years' worth of backed
> up ideas got implemented quickly). 

I guess that tends to create a certain impression...

> Here's the latest one Guido rejected:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/patch/
>     index.php?func=detailpatch&patch_id=103693&group_id=5470
> 
> That's for a tiny, fully backward-compatible change, and one that's been
> asked for several times on c.l.py over the years.  If I were the submitter,
> I would find Guido's rejection comment unconvincing.

Maybe he should have just said, "There should be one-- and preferably
only one --obvious way to do it." <wink> 

I guess some of us are guilty of over-subscribing to the "Zen of Python"
principles (at http://www.python.org/doc/Humor.html#zen, if you haven't
read 'em, Tim)  Perhaps we shouldn't adhere to these rigidly (except for
the ones which have a lot of wiggle room <wink>), but it's tempting to
do so: they make so darn much sense.  (Also, having done Perl, some of
us see what can happen when a language's central organizing principle is
"there's more than one way to do it"---what the heck kindda central
organizing principle is that?!)

I have never seen any statement from Guido to the effect of endorsing
your principles, but if he doesn't endorse them, at least the things
that "felt like a good idea at the time" to him seem to be mostly
explainable by them in retrospect.

Anyway, my point is that there certainly are forces of change and
"featurism", which come up squarely against one of Python's central
features: its lack of central features.  (Ironic, ain't it? <wink>)

Or, as a great bot once said (more or less), "those who succeed in the
language design business do so by choosing a design philosophy and
sticking to it."

which-is-yet-another-statement-you-probably-wish-we-literal
   -minded-folks-had-never-heard-<wink>-ly y'rs,

=g2
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation            http://www.iowegian.com