Re: The end to all language wars and the great unity API to come!

On Jul 4, 6:24 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rantingrick wrote:

Some people want to make Python more dynamic. Some want it to be less
dynamic. Some care about integrating it with Java or .Net, some don't care
about either. Some are interested in clever optimization tricks, some
oppose adding any more complexity.

Some want it to be faster, and are happy to throw more memory at it to do
so. Some want it to use less memory, because on embedded devices and smart
phones memory is the bottleneck, not time.

Some only program in Python. Some treat Python as merely one language out of
many that they use.

Some come to Python from the C/C++ community, and their wants are influenced
by C. Some come to Python from Lisp, Scheme or Haskell, and their wants are
influenced by functional programming ideas. Some have never programmed
before, and don't know want they want.

And are any of them getting what they want? No. And they should not.
(stay tuned for the reason "why not")

Define "best for all", and try not to make it "what Rick wants".

You want features? And remember i am talking about scripting/glue
level languages here. Something to replace Python, Ruby, Perl,
JavaScript, etc, etc not some "pie-in-the-sky", "single-answer-to-all-
our-problems" pipe dream language.

* Intuitive syntax.
* Productivity friendly.
* Complex enough to solve large problems but simple enough for simple
problems (that does include extending into C when needed)
* Multi paradigm (problem
* Promotes a culture of code readability (because people read source;
not just machines!).
* there is always more.
* we all know this list steven!

No, Python is not a monoculture. There are the Stackless, Jython, PyPy and
IronPython sub-cultures, all with their own needs, wants and desires. There
are sub-cultures for embedded devices and smart phones, sub-cultures for
those who use Python as a teaching language, for web development, for GUI
development, and for system administration. There are the Numpy and Scipy
sub-cultures, sub-cultures in the fields of linguistics and biology.

Hmm. Just think how far ahead we would be if these folks would stop
trying to support petty differences and focus on a singular Python

But let's not kid ourselves here!

This problem is far bigger than python. Selfishness infests every
group of humans on this planet. Why do we need multiple OS's? Just so
one can say "\" is the proper file path sep and someone else can say
"/" is the proper one! Are you kidding me?

Look at the multiplicity. Look at the asinine nature of it all and for
once in your life join the group that is the future of human
evolution, not the evolutionary dead-end! BTW: Tell Lucy i said hello!

Nature isn't striving for anything.
what you believe is not new and it is
not a minority view. It is old, obsolete,

Before you go out babbling about "concepts" you should understand what
these "concepts" are; or at least at the minimum read the freaking
Wiki! My statements are in no way remotely related to "Great Chain of
Being" and this feeble attempt to prove so is obviously another one of
your half stuffed straw-men arguments.

and the vast majority of people
with no modern biology education believe something like it.

You sure presume to know quite a lot about "uneducated people". Do you
know these folks personally? Do you chit-chat with them on the subway
or whilst sharing a Frappuccino?

Since needs are frequently in opposition (e.g. the speed/memory trade-off),
a single "true language" must be a compromise language that leaves nobody

Oh Steven, that's just your fear of unity acting out again. Yes,
what's good for the group will not *always* be good for you, or me, or
xah lee! But what matters is progress. Not your selfish needs Steven.

Or some dictator (Rick?) declares that such-and-such a set of
features is, by definition, the "perfect" language and those who want
something else have to miss out.

I have never held myself out as some sort of dictator. These decisions
must be made in a democratic manner. This is FUD.

Imagine a world where *every* shop was Walmart. That would be good for
Walmart, but terrible for everyone else. That's Rick's plan for

You know Steven, wal-mart is a very successful company. And wal-mart
meets the needs of the many. Again you fail to see the truth behind
the curtain. If (as you say) wal-mart really is such a bad company and
it's existence is hurting "the many"... then explain to the class (if
you can) why wal mart is the most successful retail chain in the
history of the world?

We are listening...

Do you realize that without customers buying products that wal-mart
could never get to this pinnacle of retail success? If you are
correct, then people buy from wal-mart even though wal-mart is "bad"
for them. Please explain this reversal of reality Steven because i
think you are watching too much MTV and it's rotting your brain.

Go do something useful.
Well i might just go to wal-mart!