On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:45:07 +0200,
Fredrik Lundh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> This attitude may have some downsides. The Python developers don't know
>> everything, other people can have some experience of computer languages
>> too.
>
> "some experience of computer languages" != "experience of language
> design and implementation"
>
> as long as most of the traffic on py3k is bikeshed stuff and hyper-
> generalizations, most people who do hard stuff will spend their time
> elsewhere.
Paul Prescod once wrote in c.l.py:
If Python strays into trying to be something completely new it will
fail, like Scheme, K and Smalltalk. There are both technical and
sociological reasons for this. If you stray too far technically, you
make mistakes: either you make modelling mistakes because you don't
have an underlying logical model (i.e. C++ inheritance) or you make
interface mistakes because you don't understand how your new paradigm
will be used by real programmers.
Let research languages innovate. Python integrates.
If Python 3000 turns into a let's-try-all-sorts-of-goofy-new-ideas
language, at least some of those ideas will turn out to have been
mistakes, and then we'll need a Python 3000++ to clean things up.
--amk
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
