New Python implementation

[dn]

On 12/02/2021 07.14, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 11/02/2021 18:06, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 5:01 AM Mr Flibble
>> <flibble at i42.removethisbit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/02/2021 16:31, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 4:35 AM Mr Flibble
>>>> <flibble at i42.removethisbit.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am starting work on creating a new Python implementation from
>>>>> scratch
... (which isn't a stretch given how poorly they perform).

>>>> I'd like to encourage you to give this a go.  It's a huge task, but
>>>> it's needed.
>>>
>>> Actually it is a relatively small task due to the neos universal
>>> compiler's architectural design.  If it was a large task I wouldn't
>>> be doing it.
>>>
>>>> You may be interested in...
>>>
>>> I am not particularly interested in any of the existing
>>> implementations as they bear no relation to the design of my language

...not being standardized; those steering
>>> the language need to grow a pair and get Python standardized
>>> preferably as an ISO Standard.
...
> For a language to transition from "toy" status it has to be formally
> standardized.  It is unacceptable to define a language in terms of a
> particular implementation. A git repo of Source code and associated
> observable dynamic behaviour when that code is compiled and ran is a
> poor substitute for an official ISO Standard.
> 
> /Flibble


When I first met it, one of the concepts I found difficult to 'wrap my
head around' was the idea that "open software" allowed folk to fork the
original work and 'do their own thing'. My thinking was (probably)
"surely, the original is the authoritative version". Having other
versions seemed an invitation to confusion and dilution.

However, as soon as (open) software is made available, other people
start making it 'better' - whatever their own definition of "better".

Yes, it is both a joy and a complication.


Such is contrary to the principle of "standards". At its extreme, a
standard says there is only one way to do the-whatever. This is why many
'standard programming languages' then offer the 'out' of having various
levels of 'standard'. For example, despite being one of the longest
standardised languages, many COBOL implementations achieve only part of
"the standard" - and one has to dive (deep) into the 'small print' to
establish which 'bits' are in their particular 'pick and mix'. Yet, they
still (quite legally) refer to their product as 'standard'!

The second issue with standards is the time and effort it takes to
achieve an agreement and thus reach the point of publishing.

A third issue, and possibly the reason why attempting a standard is a
"losing battle", is that programming and languages are in a constant
state of flux - we call it "ongoing development". Even though Python
v3.10 is reaching a state of anticipation, there are organisations and
libraries that still work using Python 2. Thus, and HTML/"the browser
wars" is an example of this, as fast as a standard is discussed, someone
(even those contributing to said standards) is doing his/her best to
build 'more advanced features' beyond the standard... "Standards" and
'driving development forward' are at least in tension, at worst,
complete-opposites.

Standards, like "waterfall" project specifications, cannot be 'cast in
stone' because the world keeps changing. Standards are insufficiently
agile and Agile!


Whereas the likes of COBOL had "owners", if not as a point-of-fact, at
least in terms of (commercial) 'might' and 'power', Python has its
"Python Software Foundation" (https://www.python.org/psf/). Please feel
free to approach that group to talk about 'what is Python' and
'standardisation'.

Rather than a process of "imposing" a standard, Python has a more 'grass
roots' democratic process which involves PEPs (Python Enhancement
Proposal). These are 'great ideas', even intentions-to-build or
proofs-of-concept, documented, and presented for the community to
consider. The better ones make it through and become part of the
language and its eco-system.

Has the above proposal started on that 'standards path'? Is it
'documented', or merely an idea?


Another aspect of open source is its 'meritocracy' - respect for those
who have demonstrated their abilities (and commitment). Certain names
'crop-up' on PEPs, and more tellingly, on "accepted" PEPs.

Of the three names appearing in this thread, which two have been seen
before, and have contributed to PEPs or to this list, in the past?

Is there a choice to 'stand on the shoulders of giants', or to 'walk all
over ... in hob-nailed boots'? Has this conversation illustrated
respect, or (perhaps unintentionally) torn-down others' sweat-and-tears
without offering something (better) for consideration/approval/use? Is
there any proof that you/I/someone-else can actually "do" better? An
applicable saying is "the proof is in the pudding". So, rather than
claims, shouldn't we be dealing with facts, eg system-A does better than
system-B under the following conditions?


A community comprises people who are prepared to work towards some
commonality. Positivity and friendliness, ie 'honey', tend to work
better than 'vinegar'. Would you say that anything approaching "troll"
behavior is less-likely to achieve cohesion?

Few (successful) projects are managed by a single person. This list is a
great meeting-place to find others who might share your particular
interest - and further, who might be prepared to collaborate - as the
saying goes "scratch your own itch". Is this what you seek? Has the
choice of language/approach in this conversation been best-calculated to
'gather around' like-minded folk? Is there a difference between speaking
with determination and making a case, and being disrespectful of others?


Wishing you well. It seems (to (neos-ignorant) me at least) an ambitious
project. There are certainly times when 'execution speed' becomes a
major criteria. Many of us will look forward to (your development of) a
solution. Please let us know when it's ready for use/trials...




Personal comments:

1
Am admitting to a sense of wariness towards 'new' people who use a
made-up name - despite mine being somewhat obfuscated (NB calling
"David?" in any given community is likely to elicit multiple replies,
thus the "dn"/inviting colleagues to call me by my initials).

2
Noting a false (non-standard/RFC) email address, and consequently every
message's (non-standard) impact on the email-reflector.

3
My mind is whirling in an attempt to understand "show me a better time".
Does this perhaps indicate that @Chris' social life leaves something to
be desired? Are Python-nerds really the ones to turn-to for dating
advice, or is that not what @Chris means by "(having) a good time"?
-- 
Regards,
=dn