On 05:51 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:45 AM 3/15/2007 +0100, Martin v. L�wis wrote:
I apparently took the same position that you now take back then,
whereas I'm now leaning towards (or going beyond) the position
Tim had back then, who wrote "BTW, if it *weren't* for the code
breakage,
I'd be in favor of doing this."
If it weren't for the code breakage, I'd be in favor too. That's not
the
point.
The point is that how can Python be stable as a language if precedents
can
be reversed without a migration plan, just because somebody changes
their
mind? In another five years, will you change your mind again, and
decide
to put this back the way it was?
Hear, hear. Python is _not_ stable as a language. I have Java programs
that I wrote almost ten years ago which still run perfectly on the
latest runtime. There is python software I wrote two years ago which
doesn't work right on 2.5, and some of the Python stuff contemporary
with that Java code won't even import.
Speaking as a business person, that seems to me... unwise. When I
found
out that this change had been checked in despite all the opposition, my
gut
reaction was, "I guess I can't rely on Python any more", despite 10
years
of working with it, developing open source software with it, and
contributing to its development. Because from a *business*
perspective,
this sort of flip-flopping means that moving from one "minor" Python
version to another is potentially *very* costly.
And indeed it is. Python's advantages in terms of rapidity of
development have, thus far, made up the difference for me, but it is
threatening to become a close thing. This is a severe problem and
something needs to be done about it.
But as you are so fond of pointing out, there is no "many people".
There
are only individual people. That a majority want it one way, means
that
there is a minority who want it another. If next year, it becomes more
popular to have it the other way, will we switch again? If a majority
of
people want braces and required type declarations, will we add them?
And, in fact, there is not even a majority. There is a *perception* of
a majority. There isn't even a *perception* of a majority of Python
users, but a perception of a majority of python-dev readers, who are
almost by definition less risk-averse when it comes to language change
than anyone else!
If we actually care about majorities, let's set up a voting application
and allow Python users to vote on each and every feature, and publicize
it each time such a debate comes up. Here, I'll get it started:
http://jyte.com/cl/python-should-have-a-strict-backward-compatibility-
policy-to-guide-its-development
According to that highly scientific study, at this point in time,
"Nobody disagrees" :). (One in favor, zero against.)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
