On Mar 30, 3:37 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > We live in a world where the tools that are used are based on > tradition (read that as backwards compatibility if it makes you feel > better) and as a mechanism for deriving personal identity. The world > is backwards and retarded in many, many ways, this problem is > interesting to me because it actually cuts across a much larger tract > than is immediately obvious.
Do you produce commercial code in a team? Because going by your absolutist bullshit here, it certainly doesn't sound like it. When I join an organisation that requires language A as all of its systems are written in it, is that 'tradition' or 'personal identity'? How is 'compatibility' - either with existing systems or existing *developers* - a "backwards and retarded" approach to complex problems? If I've chosen language A because some aspect of its syntax maps better onto my mind (or for _whatever_ reason that makes individuals prefer one language to another), and you've chosen language B: who gets to decide which is the 'superior' language, which is the 'better' mapping etc? You're arguing for a top-down centralised approach to language development that just will _never_ exist, simply because it cannot. If you don't accept that, I believe there's a fascinating fork called "Python 4000" where your ideas would be readily adopted. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
