Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Python's Original Sin

andreyf.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 55 posts

Re: Python's Original Sin

#11

Post by felideon »

wwortiz wrote: post #7

I don't understand python is dead or hurting because jython isn't keeping up with the latest branches? Edit: Only in a language group like rubyists do you see quick adoption and change and for many applications this isn't always great I'll take stable libraries over ever changing applications any day.

Re-read the post. It seems like he _used_ to think Python was dead because he thought the Moratorium was implemented for different reasons than the actual rationale.

Now, I'm not sure if he still thinks Python is dead or not, but that's not what his post is about. He was just stating his opinion that Python has a "[...] fundamental design flaw: a syntax which requires human compilation."

Re: Python's Original Sin

#12

Post by extension »

theBobMcCormick wrote: post #2

I'm not sure I buy this argument. The author seems to be arguing that it's a fatal design flaw for a language not to be implemented in itself. But as near as I can tell not that many languages are implemented in themselves. I'm pretty sure Java and C# (as examples) are implemented in C. Also, his argument that the compatibility issues between JPython and CPython are because python isn't implemented in itself also don…

I think the important property the author is talking about is not self-hosting, but rather extensible syntax. But your point still stands in that very few languages have this feature.

Ruby has a very flexible syntax, but there's no particular reason to call it extensible. It's also not a great example of forward progress considering that the latest language version (1.9) has been around for years and none of the alternate implementations fully support it, not even the one that is now on the verge of release (Rubinius).

Re: Python's Original Sin

#13

Post by kingkilr »

Python does have a machine readable grammar. The reason Jython isn't at 2.6 is not because of syntax changes, those would probably take less than a day to do, it's all the semantic changes that take time.

Re: Python's Original Sin

#14

Post by wwortiz »

felideon wrote: post #11
wwortiz wrote: post #7

I don't understand python is dead or hurting because jython isn't keeping up with the latest branches? Edit: Only in a language group like rubyists do you see quick adoption and change and for many applications this isn't always great I'll take stable libraries over ever changing applications any day.

Re-read the post. It seems like he _used_ to think Python was dead because he thought the Moratorium was implemented for different reasons than the actual rationale. Now, I'm not sure if he still thinks Python is dead or not, but that's not what his post is about. He was just stating his opinion that Python has a "[...] fundamental design flaw: a syntax which requires human compilation."

I did re-read the post and it just seems like perl 6 has reassured him that python is dying but I have to disagree, maybe jython is dead for what he wants but python is not dead and from the looks of it jython is not dead.

Re: Python's Original Sin

#15

Post by andreyf »

wwortiz wrote: post #7

I don't understand python is dead or hurting because jython isn't keeping up with the latest branches? Edit: Only in a language group like rubyists do you see quick adoption and change and for many applications this isn't always great I'll take stable libraries over ever changing applications any day.

I don't understand python is [...] hurting because jython isn't keeping up with the latest branches?

Yes, Python has put a moratorium on syntax changes in part because IronPython, Jython, and pypy aren't keeping up with changes. As felideon points out, I regret saying it's dead - it's just that syntax innovation that's dead (and only for a little bit), and that's a shame.

Re: Python's Original Sin

#16

Post by andreyf »

wwortiz wrote: post #14
felideon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re-read the post. It seems like he _used_ to think Python was dead because he thought the Moratorium was implemented for different reasons than the actual rationale. Now, I'm not sure if he still thinks Python is dead or not, but that's not what his post is about. He was just stating his opinion that Python has a "[...] fundamental design flaw: a syntax which requires human compilation."

I did re-read the post and it just seems like perl 6 has reassured him that python is dying but I have to disagree, maybe jython is dead for what he wants but python is not dead and from the looks of it jython is not dead.

Err, I guess this teaches me to not to even mention simplistic emotional responses like "Python is dead". Let me try to be as clear is possible:

Python is not dead. Python is hurting from a bad design decision that doesn't let multiple interpreter implementations share components that they could have. This makes it impossible for minimally maintained branches (like Jython) to keep up with the language, and so hard for better-maintained branches (like IronPython or pypy) that it necessitates a moratorium on the syntax as a whole.

Re: Python's Original Sin

#17

Post by fauigerzigerk »

Is implementation really the bottleneck when it comes to language syntax changes? My observation of Python's and also Java's progression makes me think that design issues, compatibility issues or political issues have been much more difficult than actually implementing what has been decided.

The benefit of self hosting is that all libraries are instantly available on every implementation. That's important because the libraries comprise hugely more code than the language itself I would think.

Re: Python's Original Sin

#18

Post by darthpanda »

I think this would be a big deal in some languages that love to change. But python's whole philosophy is to resist change as much as possible and point you to extensions.

I wouldn't bet on huge changes in python anytime soon after they release 3000. So other implementations don't really have to hit a constantly moving target and it's not a huge deal. For instance IronPython only supports 2.6 right now. But the features in 3k don't really change that much so some of those are being back-ported to 2.6 and the others can be gotten around with extensions.

I'd love to hear what the guys behind other implementations think about how python handles bootstrapping the compiler and if it's a big deal to them.

Re: Python's Original Sin

#20

Post by wwortiz »

andreyf wrote: post #16
wwortiz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did re-read the post and it just seems like perl 6 has reassured him that python is dying but I have to disagree, maybe jython is dead for what he wants but python is not dead and from the looks of it jython is not dead.

Err, I guess this teaches me to not to even mention simplistic emotional responses like "Python is dead". Let me try to be as clear is possible: Python is not dead. Python is hurting from a bad design decision that doesn't let multiple interpreter implementations share components that they could have. This makes it impossible for minimally maintained branches (like Jython) to keep up with the language, and so hard fo…

I can understand where you are coming from and even though IronPython and other such things are interesting but from experience python is a much slower moving language, I still interact with systems using python 2.5 and I think the moratorium is a good thing for creating libraries and implementations and overall will make adoption quicker.

I still think python's focus is in a slower world and as a python user I am okay with that.

Post reply on HN