[Alex, getting better at brevity] > Judging by languages such as C or C++, stability seems paramount; > yet Java churned a lot and still managed to spread a lot too (not > without a lot of help from high-$$$ marketing efforts, though). Another example of the Logajan paradox. > True, and yet such decision makers DO want to perceive that the > specific software they use IS actively supported. It's a reasonable > desire indeed, as I've tried to explain quite a few times. Yet it is close to Logajan's position. > If they perceive that choosing "Python in general" means they have > to choose between an "old, not actively supported any more" version > of the language, and one that breaks previously working code every > six months, then that will weigh on their mind as a big minus for > Python. So it's purely a matter of spin. Because new Python releases every 6 months do *not* mean that code breaks every 6 months. Yet some people continue to believe this. > If they perceived they could choose a "stable but actively > supported" version (the existence of an experimental one too would > not worry them, I believe -- many popular languages sprout > experimental ones based on them too) then that worry would be out of > the way, and I'd have a better chance to get them to LOOK at the > huge productivity improvements Python has in wait for them... Maybe all we need to do is make the micro releases a bit more visible... --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4