←back to thread

2024 points randlet | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.429s | source
Show context
tialaramex ◴[] No.17516212[source]
Guido's question gets to the heart of the problem:

"So what are you all going to do? Create a democracy? Anarchy? A dictatorship? A federation?"

No. None of the above. These are mechanisms which make choices when a choice must be made, even if none of the options is broadly acceptable. An appropriate mechanism for, say, governing a country.

Python isn't a country, it's just a programming language, so when there aren't any popular options _doing nothing_ is always the backstop. Does that mean that maybe, eventually, your programming language will shrivel away and become irrelevant? Yeah, it does. But again, not a country, just a programming language, use a different one.

Rough consensus is what you need here. PEP 572 never had rough consensus. Could it have obtained such consensus, someday, perhaps, with more work? Maybe, though I doubt it. But it didn't have that when the PEP was rammed through by the Benevolent Dictator.

replies(2): >>17516589 #>>17516637 #
1. robbrit ◴[] No.17516637[source]
Consensus approaches are terrible ways to design languages. It's why Java took so long to evolve, where C# rapidly adapted to changing needs; and why C++ lingered in a long state of crappiness until Stroustroup came back and is now pushing improvements every three years.

Languages generally do well when there is a sense of leadership and vision for where it is going. Consensus is terrible at providing both.