Article on the future of Python

[Devin Jeanpierre]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:11:13 -0400, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:13 AM, Steven D'Aprano
>> <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:15:00 +0100, Mark Lawrence wrote: And a
>>> response:
>>>
>>> http://data.geek.nz/python-is-doing-just-fine
>>
>> Summary of that article:
>>
>> "Sure, you have all these legitimate concerns, but look, cake!"
>
> Did you read the article or just make up a witty response? If so, you
> half succeeded.
>
> It's more like, "Well, maybe, your concerns *might* be legitimate, but I
> don't think so because..." and then he gives half a dozen or more reasons
> why Python is in no danger. None of which involve cake, although one of
> them did involve Raspberry Pi. An easy mistake to make.

Haha! :)

Well, I don't agree. But let me explain.

If we're going to have a serious discussion about the problems Python
faces in the future, then the topics that Calvin brings up are
relevant. These are problems that, ideally, we would overcome. And I
think, to some degree, we are working towards a future where these
problems are solved. (Except perhaps the game development one, which
is a rather tough problem in a lot of ways.)

As people have noted, we do have Kivy, we do have PyPy, we do have
PyJS and other such things. The future has possibilities for the
problems Calvin mentions to be solved, even if they are problems
today.

The article that was linked, the response, it doesn't talk about this.

When Calvin says that Python has problems with mobile, the article
doesn't even say "but Kivy does mobile" -- it says "but Science people
love Python!"

When Calvin says that Python has problems being done on the web, the
article doesn't even say "but PyJS!" (regardless of the problems of
relying on a hijacked project), it says "education loves Python!"

When Calvin says that Python has failed for game development, the
article doesn't try to explain any way that Python is moving to
success here, or any way that Calvin's assessment is wrong. Instead,
it says, "But The Web loves Python!"

There is a pattern here. The pattern is that the article does not
actually directly respond to anything Calvin said. It doesn't try to
carry a dialogue about concerns about problem areas Python has. It
ignores Python's problems, and focuses on its strengths.

Charitably, maybe we'd call this a way of encouraging people who are
discouraged by the bleaker tone of Calvin's post. And that's valid, if
we're worried about morale. Definitely Calvin's post could be -- and
has been -- taken the wrong way. It could be taken as a way of saying,
"Python is doomed!", even though that isn't something Calvin ever
wrote (he appears, from my reading, to be more worried about a
stagnating community than a failed language). Under that
interpretation, we would want other, more encouraging voices around,
talking about ways in which Python is good and will survive.

Uncharitably, it's just a way of hiding one's head in the sand,
ignoring any problems Python has by focusing on what problems it
doesn't have.

So that's why I said that the summary is, "but look, cake!". Instead
of being a dialogue about improving Python, it's a distraction from
the issues Calvin brought up. It brings up strengths, which are also
part of Python, but don't have much at all to do with Python's
weaknesses, or with what Calvin was talking about.

-- Devin