Gary Herron wrote: > Ilias Lazaridis wrote: > >> Greg Stein wrote: [...] >>> provided a LOT of support to a large number of open source >>> organizations. >> >> I hope that you invest some time to _organize_ the Open Source Projects. >> >> Starting with Python and it's project-structure (e.g. build-process) >> and documentation (e.g. ensuring standard-terminology is kept, like >> "class") >> >> e.g.: where can I find an UML diagramm of the Python Object Model? >> >> Even Ruby has one: >> >> http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png [...]
>> And finally: >> >> If Mr. van Rossum is now at Google, and Python is essentially a Mr. >> van Rossum based product, then most possibly the evolution-speed of >> Python will decrease even more (Google will implement things needed by >> Google - van Rossum will follow, so simple). >> >> I mean, when will this language finally become a _really_ fully >> Object-Oriented one, with a clean reflective Meta-Model? >> >> Thus I can see Python pass this this _simple_ evaluation (which it >> does not pass in its current implementation): >> >> http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/python.html >> >> - >> >> I have around one year to await. > > You don't appear to understand Open Source very well. I understand some of the several (partly contrary) meanings of "Open Source". > Python is the way it is because we, the community, *like* it that way. > It evolves in directions that we (all) decide it is to evolve. Guido is > our leader in this because we trust him and *choose* to follow his lead. > If you want something changed you don't wait and you don't whine, you > join the community with a reasoned argument for why your idea would make > it a better language in *our* eyes. > > So how about it... What's your complaint, As expressed above, I am afraid about pythons evolution-speed and futher evolution in general. a) Missing clear and concise documentation, e.g. of Python Object Model, like UML diagramm: http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png b) Leadership (Board/Leader) should engourage change suggestions and analytical feedback, whilst accepting "analyst-role" in addition to "implementors-roles" (_both_ are contributions! This should be communicated by the Board/Leader to the Communicty): [EVALUATION] - E02 - Support for MinGW Open Source Compiler http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f5cd74aa26617f17 c) I mean, when will python become _really_ fully Object-Oriented, with a clean reflective Meta-Model? Thus it will pass this simple evaluation: http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/python.html > what's your solution, http://lazaridis.com/efficiency/textual.html http://lazaridis.com/efficiency/process.html [alpha status, comments via email or contact-form are welcome] > and why should we listen? Cause this would increase the evolution-speed of python. This would contribute to its success. > Gary Herron . -- http://lazaridis.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
