> I hypothesized that, because of self-selection effects, Python's > user based (particularly on Python-Dev and in Python-only firms) is > biased against featurities _when compared_ to the general > population, which (I opine) includes a wider proportion of people > who don't particularly mind a language having many redundant > features. There is obviously nothing that needs to be "reconciled" > between this hypothesized sample-bias and the observation that > requests for features come more from the user base than from (who > else would you expect them to come FROM -- people who've never HEARD > about Python...?-). So, you're either joking or subject to a common > and quite understandable "statistical fallacy". Never forget > Bayes's Theorem...!-) I dunno. Most feature proposals come from the c.l.py crowd, and that's also the place where the loudest clamor for a stop to the featuritis was heard. And I believe that even those who consider themselves strongly anti-featuritis still have one or two pet features that they really need (even self-proclaimed arch-conservative Christian Tismer, who went so far as to develop his own version of the language because he couldn't get his pet feature adopted). > > You yourself pleaded for PEP 246 just an hour > > ago. Surely that's a big honking new feature! > > I prefer to think of it as a framework that lets most type-casts, > type-tests, special purpose type-conversion methods, and the like, > be avoided WITHOUT adding a zillion little ad-hoc features. But of > course you could choose to view it differently:-). Surely it would be a dramatic change, probably deeper than new-style classes and generators together. --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