The language vs. the environment

[Raymond Hettinger]

"Skip Montanaro" <skip at pobox.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1015449438.31833.python-list at python.org...
>
> There has been a huge amount of recent PEP activity related to further
> enhancements to the language.  I think in general that if more of this
> energy was directed at the overall environment (library, support tools,
> installers, documentation, etc) we'd be better off in the long run.

I certainly agree that effort needs to be put into the library, etc.

However, I would like to defend the PEP writers guild on a few points:

1.  Writing a PEP is a disciplined activity that involves completely
     thinking our design choices, rallying public opinion, collecting
     all points of view for and against, and documenting all of that
     information in a single, version controlled, standard format
     document in a public place for everyone to study, ridicule,
     or on extremely rare occassions, adopt.

     In other words, PEP writing is contributing to science and is
     not a wasted effort even if the idea never gets adopted.

     While some people groan whenever a new PEP appears, I think
      it's a good sign, rather than bad.  It means we have smart people
      who care and are willing to engage in public collaboration instead
      of sitting on the sides slinging mud like other language forums (not
      to mention any one particular four letter scripting language).

2.  Having several PEPs relating to loop counters suggests that either
     we're all nuts or that maybe this is a constant source of irritation
     and that any one of the proposals may be fixing a real problem.
     Note, the two options are not mutually exclusive; perhaps, we're
     all nuts AND Python needs a loop counter solution.

     My own recommendation is not entirely over top:
             indexed( collection, start=0, limit=None )

     One built-in function to improve readability and reliability while
     solving the problem forever.  Returning a generator is a low
     over-head, lazy solution compared to PEP 212 creating a huge
     new list of tuples.  The real question is why there is so much
     inertia on getting this one solved.

Please excuse the diatribe.  Now that's out of my system, here are
are few random thoughts on the PEPs:

237 Unifying longs and shorts -- I sure hope this gets finished
       for 2.3. It is long overdue (no pun intended)
246 Object Adaptation -- This has the potential to be a profound
       improvement while not getting in the way of people who
       don't need it.
265 Sorting Dictionaries by Value -- I don't think the world would
       come to an end if this were adopted.  It's kinda nice, very
       easy to implement, and is invisible to people who don't need it.
       What's all the fuss about?  Let's just do it.
266, 267 -- Optimized Python good.  Slow Python bad.
269 Pgen module -- I see the upside.  Is there a downside?
270 Uniq method for list objects -- Same comment as for 265
274 Dictionary comprehensions -- Sounds cool but is not a compelling
       advantage over dict( [(k,f(v) for k in alist] ).  Hey, it only saves
       fewer than ten characters and no lines.
275 Switching on Multiple Values -- Wouldn't be surprised if someone
       told me this optimization were already in place.  Which Pythonista
       is going to stand-up and demand that we keep a slower implementation'
       just because he or she hates the concept of change.
279 Enhanced Generators (my PEP) -- indexed() is WAY cool -- let's do it.
       Okay, the x-functions may belong in a separate module.  Generator
       Comprehensions are loved by more than few, are trivially easy to
implement,
       and invisible to those who don't care for them.  And about .next(arg)
and
       .throw(exception) -- yawn.
212, 276, 279(indexed), 281, and 284.  Any of the above, all of the above,
       pick one and solve a real problem.

My overall point is that it would be unhealthy to adopt an anti-pep attitude
and that many of the PEPs are darned useful and not at all hurtful.

This point may not apply to you.  When I wrote 279, some replies were
supportive,
some were inquisitive, some were analytical, some were helpful, but there
were
some that had a scary attitude along the lines of:
     "I don't care if the idea is good,
      I will fight further changes till my dying breath"

That being said, Skip is right.  The libraries, documentation, and patches
need work.  I did not miss his point.

G' nite,


Raymond Hettinger