Do you QA your Python? Was: 2.1 vs. 2.2

[Arthur Siegel]

[phil hunt]
> It is not new features that are the problem, it is new features that
> break existing code.

[tim]
>According to some people.  Other people have said new >features are a
problem even when they're 100% backward >compatible.

I'm more of that camp.  And in my opinion, its more an issue of pace and
timing than of change itself.

But it has to be clear who I consider my constituency to be. And I will
describe that simply as a constituency of one - myself.  But posit that I
represent an important subgroup of Python's potential constituency - but one
that would logically
be least heard from and least heard in a forum such as c.l. py.

Described briefly as a non-professional programmer, using Python as a first
language, to explore and problem solve.

My only comment on PEP284 had been that any perceived gain on behalf of
novices justified on the basis of a syntax that:

"closely matches standard mathematical notation, so is  likely to be more
familiar to Python novices than the current
range() syntax."

should be considered in light of the fact the pace of change of Python
syntax has become such that - even if the PEP284 assertion is true, its
adoption *at this time* could arguably be considered a net loss for novices.

There were follow-up posts that indicated I was not alone in having a sense
of frustration in chasing a moving target, and at having fewer and fewer
available resources - in terms of reference materials and code samples and
the like - which spoke Python in its current dialect and could be used for
reference and learning purposes.

But in truth I think the issue goes deeper than that.

Maybe I can phrase it as the Culture of Python vs. Python as Culture. The
culture of Python being highly technical and mostly among computer
scientists and professional programmers, Python as culture, a liberal art -
Python significance as a  programming language very much tied to its ability
to act as a common language for the highly technical and the less technical.

One of many examples being one of the IPC10 presentations on a system to
archive antique musical scores, with Python becoming the important glue
between the technologists and the archivists.

And I hope I am correct that it is really only a matter of pace - which I
would still argue has been unnecessarily brisk - rather than substance.
Will Python remain a common language, a point of contact, between folks with
different expertise, or evolve into  a language spoken in dialects so
divergent that it eventually fails as a touchstone between such groups.

Art