On Jul 4, 6:24 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > rantingrick wrote:
> Some people want to make Python more dynamic. Some want it to be less > dynamic. Some care about integrating it with Java or .Net, some don't care > about either. Some are interested in clever optimization tricks, some > oppose adding any more complexity. > > Some want it to be faster, and are happy to throw more memory at it to do > so. Some want it to use less memory, because on embedded devices and smart > phones memory is the bottleneck, not time. > > Some only program in Python. Some treat Python as merely one language out of > many that they use. > > Some come to Python from the C/C++ community, and their wants are influenced > by C. Some come to Python from Lisp, Scheme or Haskell, and their wants are > influenced by functional programming ideas. Some have never programmed > before, and don't know want they want. And are any of them getting what they want? No. And they should not. (stay tuned for the reason "why not") > Define "best for all", and try not to make it "what Rick wants". You want features? And remember i am talking about scripting/glue level languages here. Something to replace Python, Ruby, Perl, JavaScript, etc, etc not some "pie-in-the-sky", "single-answer-to-all- our-problems" pipe dream language. * Intuitive syntax. * Productivity friendly. * Complex enough to solve large problems but simple enough for simple problems (that does include extending into C when needed) * Multi paradigm (problem * Promotes a culture of code readability (because people read source; not just machines!). * there is always more. * we all know this list steven! > No, Python is not a monoculture. There are the Stackless, Jython, PyPy and > IronPython sub-cultures, all with their own needs, wants and desires. There > are sub-cultures for embedded devices and smart phones, sub-cultures for > those who use Python as a teaching language, for web development, for GUI > development, and for system administration. There are the Numpy and Scipy > sub-cultures, sub-cultures in the fields of linguistics and biology. Hmm. Just think how far ahead we would be if these folks would stop trying to support petty differences and focus on a singular Python language? But let's not kid ourselves here! This problem is far bigger than python. Selfishness infests every group of humans on this planet. Why do we need multiple OS's? Just so one can say "\" is the proper file path sep and someone else can say "/" is the proper one! Are you kidding me? Look at the multiplicity. Look at the asinine nature of it all and for once in your life join the group that is the future of human evolution, not the evolutionary dead-end! BTW: Tell Lucy i said hello! > Nature isn't striving for anything. > [...] > what you believe is not new and it is > not a minority view. It is old, obsolete, Before you go out babbling about "concepts" you should understand what these "concepts" are; or at least at the minimum read the freaking Wiki! My statements are in no way remotely related to "Great Chain of Being" and this feeble attempt to prove so is obviously another one of your half stuffed straw-men arguments. > and the vast majority of people > with no modern biology education believe something like it. You sure presume to know quite a lot about "uneducated people". Do you know these folks personally? Do you chit-chat with them on the subway or whilst sharing a Frappuccino? > Since needs are frequently in opposition (e.g. the speed/memory trade-off), > a single "true language" must be a compromise language that leaves nobody > happy. Oh Steven, that's just your fear of unity acting out again. Yes, what's good for the group will not *always* be good for you, or me, or xah lee! But what matters is progress. Not your selfish needs Steven. > Or some dictator (Rick?) declares that such-and-such a set of > features is, by definition, the "perfect" language and those who want > something else have to miss out. I have never held myself out as some sort of dictator. These decisions must be made in a democratic manner. This is FUD. > Imagine a world where *every* shop was Walmart. That would be good for > Walmart, but terrible for everyone else. That's Rick's plan for > programming. You know Steven, wal-mart is a very successful company. And wal-mart meets the needs of the many. Again you fail to see the truth behind the curtain. If (as you say) wal-mart really is such a bad company and it's existence is hurting "the many"... then explain to the class (if you can) why wal mart is the most successful retail chain in the history of the world? We are listening... Do you realize that without customers buying products that wal-mart could never get to this pinnacle of retail success? If you are correct, then people buy from wal-mart even though wal-mart is "bad" for them. Please explain this reversal of reality Steven because i think you are watching too much MTV and it's rotting your brain. > Go do something useful. Well i might just go to wal-mart! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
