121–130 of 181 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The short summary of it being that these people are beyond terrible at giving names to things.
Programmers and engineers should never be allowed to name things. I say that as a programmer and engineer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both programs have been announced as granting six months, but neither of them have explicitly said that there won't be options to renew for another six months. I expect they haven't decided that themselves yet and don't want to commit publicly until they've seen how well the program goes.
Even if you’re right, no one should be making a decision of enrolling into those programs because maybe, with zero indication they’ll be renewed again in six months. You know what they could also do? Stop the programs for new enrolments next month. Or if if they renew them like you said, it could be with new conditions which exclude people currently on them. There are too many unknowns, and giving these companies the…
At this point it's probably better investing time and money into RustPython[1][2]. [1] https://rustpython.github.io/ [2] https://github.com/RustPython/RustPython
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you’re right, no one should be making a decision of enrolling into those programs because maybe, with zero indication they’ll be renewed again in six months. You know what they could also do? Stop the programs for new enrolments next month. Or if if they renew them like you said, it could be with new conditions which exclude people currently on them. There are too many unknowns, and giving these companies the…
If I understand correctly, they are literally giving things away for free for a 6 months period and we are complaining that they don't promise it stays free forever?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both programs have been announced as granting six months, but neither of them have explicitly said that there won't be options to renew for another six months. I expect they haven't decided that themselves yet and don't want to commit publicly until they've seen how well the program goes.
Even if you’re right, no one should be making a decision of enrolling into those programs because maybe, with zero indication they’ll be renewed again in six months. You know what they could also do? Stop the programs for new enrolments next month. Or if if they renew them like you said, it could be with new conditions which exclude people currently on them. There are too many unknowns, and giving these companies the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third party libraries like SciPy scikit-learn, pandas, tensorflow and pytorch have been critical to python’s success. Since CPython is written in C and exposes a nice C API, those libraries can leverage it to quickly move from (slow) python to (fast) C/C++, hitting an optimum between speed of development and speed of runtime. PyPy’s alternative, CFFI, was not attractive enough for the big players to adopt. And HPy, a…
Sorry can you explain more the connection between PyPy and CFFI (which generates compiled extension modules to wrap an existing C library)? I have never used PyPy, but I use CFFI all the time (to wrap C libraries unrelated to Python so that I can use them from Python)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being three major versions behind CPython is definitely not a great sign for the long-term viability of it.
I'd genuinely be curious what fraction of those changes actually requires porting to other Python implementations. The free-threading changes are inherently interpreter specific, so we can ignore those. A significant change in Python 3.12 is dropping "dead batteries", so that can be ignored as well. From what I can see, the main language changes are typing-based (so could have parser implications), and the subinterpr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the most significant boundary is given by the question: "is there a plan to support new minor versions of Python?" It sounds like there is not. There may be non-zero maintenance work happening, but a project that only maintains support for old versions and will never adopt new ones is functionally one that the ecosystem will eventually forget about. Maybe you call that "under active development" but my respon…
More specifically, the Scientific Python community through SPEC 0[0] recommends that support for Python versions is dropped three years after their release. Python 3.12 was released in October 2023[1], so that community is going to drop support for it in October 2026. Considering that PyPy is only just now starting to seriously work on supporting 3.12, there's a pretty high chance that it won't even be ready for use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Faster Python project would’ve got further if Microsoft hadn’t let the entire team go when they made large numbers of their programming languages teams redundant last year. All in the name of “AI”. Microsoft basically gave up on core computer science to go chase the hype wave.
You’re right, of course: even Guido seems to have been moved off working on CPython and onto some tangentially-related AI technology. However, Faster CPython was supposed be a 4-year project, delivering a 1.5x speedup each year. AFAIK they had the full 4 years at Microsoft, and only achieved what they originally planned to do in 1 year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if you’re right, no one should be making a decision of enrolling into those programs because maybe, with zero indication they’ll be renewed again in six months. You know what they could also do? Stop the programs for new enrolments next month. Or if if they renew them like you said, it could be with new conditions which exclude people currently on them. There are too many unknowns, and giving these companies the…
Is your argument here that you shouldn't accept the free trial because you might find it useful and then be trapped into paying for more of it later?
We should be discussing what is factual now, not be making up scenarios which could maybe happen but have zero indication that they will.