Language change and code breaks (fwd)
bokr at accessone.com
Fri Jul 20 19:57:47 CEST 2001
On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 07:37:46 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
>James Logajan wrote:
>> Peter Hansen wrote:
>> > 1. They are inactive in the Python community and are
>> > therefore unaware of the upcoming code breakage.
>> > 2. Their code is dependent on the existing integer
>> > division behaviour, and yet they are not amongst
>> > the classes of users identified in this newsgroup
>> > as being the most likely to be impacted.
>> > 3. They are incapable of maintaining their code,
>> > and simultaneously are entirely at the mercy of
>> > outside forces who may choose to upgrade them
>> > against their will or without their knowledge to
>> > the new and incompatible version of Python.
>> > Or, they are not at the mercy of outside forces,
>> > yet mysteriously cannot *avoid* upgrading their
>> > Python installations and thus breaking their
>> > own code (which they somehow cannot maintain).
>> > 4. Were we to develop and make easily available to
>> > them a scanner capable at least of identifying
>> > the probability they will suffer code breakage,
>> > they would be unable to use it, whether for
>> > (1) or (3).
>> > Have I missed anything?
>> I'm sure you could think of many more insults if you just tried harder. Just
>> how many years have you been in commercial software development anyway?
>Did you miss the thread up until this point?
>I neither intended the above to be insulting nor, as far as I
>can tell, *is* anything in the above insulting.
>Therefore, I agree completely with you. I could *definitely*
>think of more insults (than zero) if I tried.
>I've been in commercial software development since roughly 1981.
>(Perhaps you consider something in *this* posting insulting too.
>If you do, we clearly have a different definition of insulting.
>You, by the way, were obviously trying to insult me, and I honestly
>have no idea why.)
Perhaps James meant "insult" in the sense of "insult and injury" to
the victims whose injuries you were enumerating. That's the way I took it.
I think you are usefully pointing out a real problem.
Trying to code in the least-likely-to-be-changed subset
of a language is not fun, but that is what you wind up doing.
Perhaps the BDFL may want to consider making a never-to-be-changed
subset official? Ada went through a no-subset discussion, but I think
I might like a very lean official subset, especially if it also meant
a very lean embedding option.
Isn't it fun trying to make Netscape and IE show the same thing
on the screen? ISTM the same could happen between generations of Python.
More information about the Python-list