PEP scepticism

[Peter Hansen]

Robin Becker wrote:
> 
> In article <3B471314.8B179A92 at engcorp.com>, Peter Hansen
> <peter at engcorp.com> writes
> >Robin Becker wrote:
> >>
> >> The language is evolving as all languages do because of the needs of its
> >> users. Five years ago the leadership said integer division was good,
> >> today it's bad; the audience changed is all.
> >
> >Actually, maybe it's just which audience members are vocal which
> >has changed recently.
... [snip]
> >But until now my voice was silent on the matter.  Perhaps the
> >reason you think the needs of the users has changed is because
> >Python suits the needs of some users so well that they don't
> >feel the need to constantly whine about the fact.  Maybe only
> >those who have a problem with it are going to make their voice
> >heard.  (As someone said a few messages back: Well, duh! :-)
> 
> You infer too much as I prefer to keep the / operator as it is.

I can't see anything in my message which infers your preference
on this issue one way or the other.  What I _did_ comment on was
your expressed belief that the needs of the users was changing 
(this being the reason, you said, for the evolution of the language).  

> I believe that the python developers have an interest in promoting the
> language to a wider audience and so they keep changing the language to
> enhance its popularity.

Guido said as much in other messages.  I don't see this as a
particularly bad thing (actually not bad in any way at all).  

I am a little concerned at the rate of change though, or, perhaps more 
accurately, at the desired rate of change.  It appears the developers 
are working hard towards an environment in which language change can 
occur _very_ quickly.  

I believe they want to do this to make change go more smoothly, 
efficiently, and with greater consensus.  The problem, I believe, 
is that not enough time is being given to the discussion of the
change prior to agreeing to do it.  As an example, the discussion
on div() appears already to have progressed to the point where
a decision is forming on a plan to do it over the next couple of
years.  

I applaud the slow (proposed) pace of implementing the change, but 
I think the discussion itself should be taking many months before
a decision is made, to give more people the opportunity to voice
their concerns.  

That is to a large extent the purpose and effect of the PEP process, 
I suppose, and yet it feels like in the last few months there
have been literally dozens of significant changes to the language.

Perhaps the issue, then, is not the speed of discussion and 
implementation of individual changes, but the sheer volume of 
proposed changes.  Taken one at a time they all seem reasonable
and harmless, maybe even useful, but as a whole they feel like
an onslaught that could lead to a loss of "focus" as to the
nature of Python.  They may dilute the language's (until now)
clarify of purpose and style.  Frankly I'm worried.

-- 
----------------------
Peter Hansen, P.Eng.
peter at engcorp.com