This was shown to me today, and I thought I’d share it here since it pretty much applies 100% to what we’re doing on this list too (other than the fact the examples are from Java) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5Pv4yN0b0
----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
First, do no harm, eh?
(only 14 minutes into it so far)
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Donald Stufft donald@stufft.io wrote:
This was shown to me today, and I thought I’d share it here since it pretty much applies 100% to what we’re doing on this list too (other than the fact the examples are from Java) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y5Pv4yN0b0
Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
On 31 October 2015 at 14:15, Wayne Werner waynejwerner@gmail.com wrote:
First, do no harm, eh?
I haven't had time to watch it yet so I don't have the full context of the observation, but that's only true if current users are considered categorically more important than future users. That's a dangerous line of thinking, as it means the cognitive burden of learning a language and ecosystem can only ever grow, and never shrink (since superseded concepts are never pruned from the set of things you need to learn, and you're also never really able to fix design mistakes resulting from limited perspectives in early iterations).
Large scale migration projects like the shift away from implementation defined behaviour in the Python packaging ecosystem are cases where reducing barriers to entry for *new* users has edged out compatibility for existing users as a priority - the latter is still important, it's just acceptable for the level of compatibility to be less than 100%.
Regards, Nick.
P.S. From a medical perspective, there are certainly cases were doctors *do* inflict a lesser harm (e.g. amputations) to avoid a greater harm (e.g. death). "We saved the limb, but lost the patient" isn't one of the available options.
Hi,
Thanks for sharing that video, Donald.
In context, I don't think it's fair to characterize the speaker's perspective as *dangerous*, or of categorically favoring current users over potential new users. Obviously there are a lot of tradeoffs around backward compatibility, and no one-sized-fits-all solutions.
One of the most powerful points Brian made is that the large user base of Java (or Python, etc) is an immensely powerful source of leverage. Each incremental improvement to the language, standard library, or associated tools will almost immediately impact a lot of users and improve their lives. It's kind of an obvious point, but I think he expressed it very well.
On that note, I lurk on this list regularly, but generally don't really contribute. I do see the awesome work that ya'll are putting in on a day to day basis, and I see the results in the wild. Thanks to all of your hard work, the packaging situation has vastly improved, and continues to do so, especially with pip and wheels. All your hard work has definitely made my life better, for one.
Best, Robert
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Nick Coghlan ncoghlan@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 October 2015 at 14:15, Wayne Werner waynejwerner@gmail.com wrote:
First, do no harm, eh?
I haven't had time to watch it yet so I don't have the full context of the observation, but that's only true if current users are considered categorically more important than future users. That's a dangerous line of thinking, as it means the cognitive burden of learning a language and ecosystem can only ever grow, and never shrink (since superseded concepts are never pruned from the set of things you need to learn, and you're also never really able to fix design mistakes resulting from limited perspectives in early iterations).
Large scale migration projects like the shift away from implementation defined behaviour in the Python packaging ecosystem are cases where reducing barriers to entry for *new* users has edged out compatibility for existing users as a priority - the latter is still important, it's just acceptable for the level of compatibility to be less than 100%.
Regards, Nick.
P.S. From a medical perspective, there are certainly cases were doctors *do* inflict a lesser harm (e.g. amputations) to avoid a greater harm (e.g. death). "We saved the limb, but lost the patient" isn't one of the available options. _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
-
Donald Stufft -
Nick Coghlan -
Robert McGibbon -
Wayne Werner