On 7 Sep, 23:00, castironpi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am concerned by the lack of follow-through on some responses to > recent ideas I have described. Do I merely have a wrong understanding > of group policy?
I think some people have taken exception to your contributions previously, which I believe exhibits a certain degree of shortsightedness on their part, considering for example the recent thread which brought up just-in-time compilation techniques where there were pretty valid reasons for keeping the thread going. Certainly, it wasn't as if the level of discussion was stuck at basic contradiction or mudslinging, and even if reading the different papers on the topic might help an inquirer on the matter, there's certainly nothing wrong with seeking guidance over which papers might be the best ones, nor with seeking some kind of context for that work within the realm of Python implementations, especially given the recent glut of news on virtual machine improvements for other dynamic languages. > Is it a good policy (defined with respect to the > future of Python and the welfare of humans at large) if so? Is there > a serious lack of diligence, or should I merely take more initiative, > and ignore charges of 'pestering'? (Warning, moderately deep outside > social issues on table too.) I'm no expert on getting other people to embrace ideas, but here's my advice anyway. If you have an idea and can describe it coherently, please do so; this won't guarantee positive responses, but there may be people out there who feel that you're onto something. If the idea has merit - generally, the most reliable way to know involves you personally experiencing difficulties in a problem area where the idea in question promises to alleviate some of those difficulties - then by developing that idea, typically producing something that others can try out, people will know that you mean business. Alternatively, people might point you to existing work that will address the problems you're having, saving you the bother of having to write a load of code to enact that idea of yours. You can be lucky and have people chasing you down over what you've produced, but I'd argue that most of the time, for any given idea which becomes a project, you'll have a few people interested in what you've done, but the motivation for continuing will be something that will depend on yourself and your own needs. You have to accept that even if you think that people (and Python) might be well served in listening to what you have to say, that message may go unheard. Once upon a time, the BDFL and the most central core developers used to read comp.lang.python and ideas about Python's future were exchanged readily. Today, all lobbying takes place on the python-dev/ 3000/ideas mailing lists, but those lists are more conservative with regard to contributions than comp.lang.python (python-list). Perhaps as a consequence, the divide between those steering the language and those using it has grown: "producers" use the aforementioned lists, "consumers" argue with each other on the newsgroup, and it might be in the release notes that you learn about happenings that previously would have been reported more widely elsewhere. Certainly, influencing the future of Python, at least officially, is a lot more hard work than it used to be. One may decide to worry about this, along with matters like how Python will remain able to compete with other languages and platforms. I regard the future development of Python as a process which may not necessarily serve my interests, but since the community around Python is so much larger and more diverse than those following every last Python 3.0 commit, I see no need to become agitated by the direction of the language developers. Since Python is Free Software one has, after all, a lot of flexibility when deciding who to associate with and who to influence, and it is ultimately only through trying to achieve things with the technology that one's priorities (or the things one should be worrying about) emerge. For me, then, influencing Python 3.x isn't a priority since I have enough to be thinking about and working on, and I wonder if I'll ever do anything with Python 3.x anyway. So, I suppose, the message is this: follow your own interests, make contributions in the ways that make sense to you, seek contact with like-minded developers in groups which might be remote from mainstream Python development (find an appropriate, potentially specialised audience); these things will define any need you may have to influence others. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
