Python was designed (was Re: Multi-threading in Python vs Java)

[Terry Reedy]

On 10/14/2013 7:11 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:

> I'm not sure what you mean by all of these - I've known Python for
> only a (relatively) short time, wasn't there in the 1.x days (much
> less the <1.0 days). But according to its history page, the early 1.x
> versions of Python predate the widespread adoption of Unicode, so it's
> a little unfair to look with 2013 eyes and say that full true Unicode
> support should have been there from the start.

The first versions of Python and unicode were developed and released 
about the same time. No one knew that either would be as successful as 
they have become over two decades.

>> Old-style classes vs. new-style classes.
>
> By the time I started using Python, new-style classes existed and were
> the recommended way to do things, so I never got the "feel" for
> old-style classes. I assume there was a simplicity to them, since

Too simple. All user classes were instances of the userclass type. All 
user instances were instances of the userinstance type, or something 
like that. There were otherwise separate from builtin types. I have 
forgotten the details and have no wish to remember.

The system was usable but klutzy. I believe it was an add-on after the 
initial release. People wanted to be able to subclass builtins even back 
in 1.4 days, but Guido did not realized how to use the obscure metaclass 
hook to do so until 2.2 was being developed. Most core devs are happy to 
be rid of them (except when patching 2.7).

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy