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

Python gets a new governance model

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 191 posts

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#161

Post by pjmlp »

chaosite wrote: post #88
ecshafer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as far as successful languages go, the truth is the opposite. Languages with large design by committee teams are most successful. C++, Java, C, JavaScript or even going back to Cobol and Fortran. The languages with the most use are not typically designed by one person.

I mean, eventually a committee takes over, sure. But C++ is Stroustrup, Java is Gosling, C is K&R, JavaScript is Eich. Most successful languages kept their internal consistency by being designed by a single person. Historically, these single persons also had mustaches. Yes, eventually all of those graduated to a design-by-committee approach, but that happened much later. But yes, in that sense, Python is just followi…

C++ was Stroustrup before C++89, Java was Gosling until about 1.5, C was K&R before C89, JavaScript was Eich until ES3.

So, all around 20 to 30 years ago.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#162

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

wildmusings wrote: post #136

It's incredible how infectious the democracy meme is. It makes most sense when determining how violence will be used within a society (i.e. the fundamental function of government). It makes a lot less sense for running projects and organizations that people are free to come and go from. But the idea's intellectual stranglehold is just too strong to resist. The merits of singular vision, unity of design, counter-major…

> how infectious

Hey, there's people working hard on that, it's not just some accidental freebie ...

The system, however, does have positive feedback - the more you advertise, the more resources you have for advertising.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#163

Post by claudiawerner »

village-idiot wrote: post #159
claudiawerner wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> This only serves to express your view (or rather, ideology) that we're living in a post-ideological world in which battles are no longer fought over beliefs but only material access to resources. I said no such thing. I also note the use of ideology as a subtle dig, as if I’m some extremist. > This is only valid as a pretty bad caricature of Marxism, in fact. The idea that my post was anti-Marxist exists only in yo…

My point on ideology wasn't to say that ideology is extremist, rather it was to say that we are all ideological. Ideology in popular speech seems to mean something extremist, because we figure outselves to be free of ideology: rational, economical etc. - but these are ideologies in themselves. You and I are both steeped in ideology and that's not a bad thing. The bad thing is thinking we are free of it, or the world works as if it's free of it, or that societies don't perpetuate themselves through Establishment ideology.

I also didn't want to imply you're poorly read, or that you should be well read on something as arcane as 20th century leftist theory, I only wanted to bring your attention to the idea that the left doesn't shy away from grossness in any future society.

The question is never of eliminating politics in the most general sense, it's to eliminate current politics in a constantly revolutionary fashion. Communism is a political movement, for instance, and the very existence of the party shows that they don't want to get rid of politics - they only want to move away from bourgeois democracy which supports (and is supported by) capital. Not even the anarchists deny the role of politics. But the idea that politics is merely a disagreement about resource allocation is ideological (and this time I do mean it in a bad sense).

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#164

Post by xyzzy123 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #6

Councils, committees, multiple obtuse voting systems, governance documents, 'courts' of appeal... Why are they so keen to construct such a grim bureaucracy for themselves?

I think the unspoken need is to protect the organisation (and maintainers) from the plague of recriminations and identity politics.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#165

Post by village-idiot »

claudiawerner wrote: post #163
village-idiot wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This only serves to express your view (or rather, ideology) that we're living in a post-ideological world in which battles are no longer fought over beliefs but only material access to resources. I said no such thing. I also note the use of ideology as a subtle dig, as if I’m some extremist. > This is only valid as a pretty bad caricature of Marxism, in fact. The idea that my post was anti-Marxist exists only in yo…

My point on ideology wasn't to say that ideology is extremist, rather it was to say that we are all ideological. Ideology in popular speech seems to mean something extremist, because we figure outselves to be free of ideology: rational, economical etc. - but these are ideologies in themselves. You and I are both steeped in ideology and that's not a bad thing. The bad thing is thinking we are free of it, or the world…

Most of that’s pretty reasonable, but you’re talking about something completely unrelated to the point I was making.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#166

Post by geezerjay »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #70
ThePhysicist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's nothing wrong with re-using good solutions that others have worked out instead of building your own just for the sake of being different. That's the open-source idea even, no? Freely reuse and build upon the work of others, so that we don't have to reinvent things again and again.

And yet open source is constantly reinventing the same things over and over again anyway. I think parent's complaint is that Debian's model has failed to produce good solutions of its own, and while that isn't necessarily a requirement, it does speak to potential limitations of the model

> I think parent's complaint is that Debian's model has failed to produce good solutions of its own

Debian must be producing very good results, and doing so consistently. Otherwise Debian wouldn't be either the most successful linux distro or the distro that is forked by the vast majority of leading distros.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#167

Post by pstch »

kibwen wrote: post #66
sytelus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike other software projects, language design requires a single mind to think holistically, break things when needed, avoid feature creep while at the same time keep doors open for new ideas. It’svery intricate balance. Once language doesn’t have one leader, it will likely die in long term. I would call it death by committee:).

This is unfounded in practice. Having a BDFL did little to stop Python's feature set from growing, or to prevent design flaws like `lambda`, or to make Python 3 anything other than the poster child for how not to break things. Conversely, we can look to Javascript (yes, Javascript!) as an example of a language that was a total mess after being designed by a single person and that got immeasurably better once it began…

I'm curious, and I didn't see any other mention of it in the thread : why do you consider `lambda` to be flawed ? Is it because it has the same scoping rules as functions, and that you consider these scoping rules inappropriate for lambda expressions ?

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#168

Post by teddyh »

chrisseaton wrote: post #20
jetrink wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to explicit rules, hierarchies and power structures usually isn't harmonious self-organization; it is unspoken rules, implicit hierarchies and hidden power structures.

I think a new BFDL would be a worse-is-better solution than all this play-government formality, to be honest. It seems to be an effective system for many languages, including Python in the past.

— What does it mean to be king?

— You will be the land, and the land will be you. If you fail, the land will perish. As you thrive, the land will blossom.

— But why?

— Because you are king!

King Arthur and Merlin, Excalibur (1981)

This, concisely, is the problem with kings.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#169

Post by Barrin92 »

scott_s wrote: post #67
jetrink wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to explicit rules, hierarchies and power structures usually isn't harmonious self-organization; it is unspoken rules, implicit hierarchies and hidden power structures.

Agreed. There's a famous essay from the feminism movement about this: "The Tyranny of Structurelessness", https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm It has been discussed on HN multiple times: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=THE%20TYRANNY%20of%20STRUCTURE...

Also of course very relevant in the tech world. Superficially egalitarian and non-hierarchical, but in reality dominated by strong in-groups and out-groups, business decisions made on the basis of favouritism and personal connections, including bizarre stories about byzantine sex orgies involving corporate executives.

Even the feminism angle is relevant here, because more often than not women are made worse off in these laissez-faire arrangements.

Re: Python gets a new governance model

#170

Post by photojosh »

teddyh wrote: post #168
chrisseaton wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a new BFDL would be a worse-is-better solution than all this play-government formality, to be honest. It seems to be an effective system for many languages, including Python in the past.

— What does it mean to be king? — You will be the land, and the land will be you. If you fail, the land will perish. As you thrive, the land will blossom. — But why? — Because you are king! King Arthur and Merlin, Excalibur (1981) This, concisely, is the problem with kings.

Reminded me of the Israelites asking for a king:

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

(1 Samuel 8)

Post reply on HN