* Steven D'Aprano, on 13.06.2010 19:57:
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 08:42:57 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
i will start a fork.
That is the most sensible thing you have said yet. Please do so, it will
be a great thing for the Python community.
Not nice to quote out of context, there was an "if" and a "then" earlier in
Rick's sentence.
I don't think he'll do it, or if he does, I don't think it will fly.
There are two reasons why I think it won't fly if attempted. One is the
technical aspect: it's just too much, and maintaining compatibility with
libraries is in direct conflict with the goal of improvement. The other is
social: I don't think it would be possible to establish a sufficiently large
supportive community for something in direct competition with CPython.
What I think will happen regarding the future of Python is the same as currently
is happening with C++. The language evolved or rather perhaps "devolved" into
higher complexity than its users, and even the compiler vendors, felt
comfortable with. And then a number of similar but simpler languages (e.g.
Objective C and Walter Bright's D, not to mentioned "C++ as a better C" and
various formalizations of that subset idea) started to fill some of the niche
that C++ earlier had all of; this is still an ongoing process.
Comparing C++ and Python evolution may seem far fetched, but e.g. the C++
standardization working groups adopted the idea of PEPs from Python. In C++
they're called "proposals" or "papers" but it's much the same thing. Python has
Guido, C++ has Bjarne. In both cases the original language was designed
single-handedly by the god. And in both cases it's now essentially
design-by-committee.
Cheers,
- Alf
--
blog at <url: http://alfps.wordpress.com>
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
