Alternative decorator syntax - POLL RESULTS SO FAR - ARE WE DONE?

[Arthur]

On 22 Aug 2004 19:27:59 +0300, Ville Vainio <ville at spammers.com>
wrote:

>>>>>> "Arthur" == Arthur  <ajsiegel at optonline.com> writes:
>
>    Arthur> It seems ironic to me that in a group devoted to an
>    Arthur> appreciation of Python, and its advocacy - it is often
>    Arthur> those who reject the notion that the language has the
>    Arthur> kinds of glaring weaknesses that require some fundamental
>    Arthur> change ot it, that form the opposition to an
>    Arthur> "establishment" that has become convinced quite otherwise.
>
>If you don't want improvements to the language, don't download the new
>version. Keep on writing the code in the old style, and run foreign
>code through a preprocessor that e.g. converts decorators to the old
>non-syntax style.

>If you really want a stagnant, non-evolving language, there are many
>to choose from. I guess Python could also be forked to a special
>ZombiePython edition, where heresy like a+=4 and list comprehensions
>are unheard of.

This reaction to my remarks is predictable.

Ascribing to those remarks an extremism they do not intend.  And then
attacking that extreme position.

Why did new style classes and attendant matters - the most sweeping
re-architecture of the language probably since its inception - make it
into the language without a near peep of controversy? And integer
division cause an uproar?

To me, the first seems evolutionary and truly seems to be Guido's
inner gyroscope at work  The second made its way to the top of the
agenda in round-about ways, and seemed a near arbitrary point of
focus.

Since I've been around, the controversial issues are the ones that
deserved their controversy -  Python folks being a reasonable and
intelligent lot.

Art 
 
>
>    Arthur> I sometimes wish those folks were more candid about its
>    Arthur> deficiencies before I started my study of it back in 1.5.2
>    Arthur> days.
>
>If Python was still like 1.5.2, 90% of the current community would be
>running Ruby (assuming it would have evolved while Python had
>stagnated).