[Edu-sig] Why Python?

[kirby urner]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Bill Punch <punch at cse.msu.edu> wrote:

<< snip >>

> - open source and language changes. I'm a big fan of open source, but it is
> often a two edged sword. When Python started, it generated such enthusiasm
> and resulted in so many packages, which was wonderful. Then, the language
> guys came along and broke Python for the 3.x series, making a "better"
> language. Well, that's nice and all, but the difference between writing a
> package the first time and fixing a package for a bunch of language changes
> is pretty big. Lots of open source folks are happy to do work for cudos and
> praise (the first time) but no one wants to do the nasty work of a language
> upgrade. Who knows how long till numpy gets upgraded to 3.x, and it must
> happen for many other packages, and so on and so forth. Open source is a
> great starter but it has its troubles w.r.t long term maintenance and
> changes. Till then, we are stuck with 2.x if we want to work with all those
> nice packages. Worse, people developing for 3.x may not wait and write their
> own numpy (or whatever package), causing a package break. Now there are two,
> with two groups and all the hassle that goes with it. Forking is another
> feature of open source (look at all the linux distros).
>

"Why Python sucks" with a focus on this or that feature, is a somewhat
well-established genre at Pycons and such, a type of lightning talk in
many cases.

Good to welcome dissenting and dissatisfied voices.  Any one of us
may need to vent some pet peeves in that way.**

Strong proponents of Python, such as yourself, need to be clear you
are not blind to her limitations.

Sometimes when a shortcoming is described, a fix is proposed
(as a PEP) but that's not a requirement, nor even indicated in some
cases.

In the case of list comprehensions, that syntax seems pretty
entrenched.  Set and dictionary comprehensions have followed.

Regarding the leap from 2.x to 3.x in particular, I don't think
having Python be open source is to blame.  Guido himself had
some backward incompatibilities he wanted to introduce.  Not
every language designer gets such an opportunity and it's not
an easy jump to make (lots of thought has gone into it).

Had it not been for Guido's leadership and active desire to get
on with some of these changes, the momentum / inertia of the
larger open source community might have prevented 3.x from ever
becoming a reality.  From my tone, you may guess I'm feeling up
beat about 3.x and its future.  True enough.

I also think the acceptance of this PEP to freeze the core
language for awhile, to give more 3rd party package maintainers
some breathing room, is a good move by Guido, Brett Cannon et al.

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2009-October/006305.html

Kirby

> I'll cut it there. Languages are tools. If you were a carpenter, you might
> learn how to use a hammer first but then move on to other tools as your
> problems change. You cannot solve all your problems with a hammer, which is
> why other tools exist. Same with languages. Each has their advantages, their
> flaws. Python is a great way to start, but don't think it is the only way to
> go.
>
>       >>>bill<<<
>
>
>

** For me, it's a lack of language bindings to applications we still don't
have yet, simulations and so forth (some of which I've described
elsewhere) -- and not enough Rich Data Structures in native Python,
these latter to with content outside of computer science.

Just today I was in this meeting talking about how I'd like to simply
download a source .py file and go:

>>> import elements
>>> atom = elements.Carbon(neutrons=8)
>>> atom.protons
6
>>> atom.radioactive
True

Another module would have a data structure such as:  every
nation-state as of year X (a context) with a link to every nation-state
with a shared border (a graph or polyhedral structure).  These are
just examples.  I go back in this archive with this theme, have
provided some data of my own:

http://markmail.org/search/?q=edu-sig+stillaguamish

etc.

This isn't a beef with the language so much as with surrounding eco-
system.