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

[rusi]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 2:20:10 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> If you read the whole python-history blog on blogspot, you'll see that 
> Python's had it's share of mistakes, design failures and other "oops!" 
> moments. I think that it is a testament to GvR's over-all design that the 
> end result has been so good, despite the mistakes, as well as Python's 
> conservative-but-not-too-conservative approach to changes. Compared to 
> (say) Firefox, which comes out with new releases seemingly twice a week, 
> Python is slow to change and conservative; compared to (say) Fortran, 
> which changes in a time-span of decades rather than years, it's quite 
> fast moving. I think Python has more or less hit the sweet-spot.

Yes heartily agree.

Mostly we have systems/software/languages that fall into one of two categories:
a. Completely immobile -- which means the only change is the inevitable bitrot of slow aging
b. So much blood that we cant see the 'edge' in the bleeding edge

That way python is surely in a sweetspot (for me):

In 2001 I started teaching programming with a computer projector (rather than chalk).  This meant that classes became more dynamic and alive but also my head was more than ever on the line -- with chalk-board you can occasionally fudge your way out with bullshit.  When the projector is displaying an unexpected result or a backtrace/segfault there is no such room!!

By chance(?) it was also the time I started teaching python.

And for these last 10+ years python has been like a faithful servant -- useful, unobtrusive, predictable.  The number of times Ive had  to say in a class: "Ok guys I dont know..." (In short I am screwed) is hardly a handful.

One of the very occasional embarrassing exceptions: 
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2011-July/609362.html