Not sure this discussion belongs here but since you asked:
I think it should have takes three/four more bold steps:
1) address the GIL issue completely by removing reference counting
2) add more support for lightweight threads (like stackless, erlang
and go)
3) perhaps allow some mechanism for tainting data and do restricted
execution
4) change name to avoid confusion
... and yet stress that it was almost 100% compatible with existing
python code.
I think a lot more people would have jumped on it from outside the
existing community.
The future is in multi core processors and lightweight threads.
Of course I am not a developer and I do realize these things may be
hard to accomplish.
I also trust Guido's judgement more than my own in this respect so
consider mine a wish more than a realistic suggestion.
Massimo
On Sep 16, 2010, at 2:16 PM, Ty Sarna wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
My experience in various
communities suggests that naming the new totally-bw-incompat thing
the
same as the old thing weakens both the new thing and the old thing,
I share the same experience.
Interesting. Do you feel that Python 3.x should have been named
something other than Python?
I think that would rather have weakened both 3.x and 2.x by
suggesting a fork, placing the two in competition, when the goal was
to have one supersede the other, as is also the case here.
_______________________________________________
Web-SIG mailing list
Web-SIG@python.org
Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/archive%40mail-archive.com
