On Nov 28, 2017, at 15:31, Raymond Hettinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> Put me down for a strong -1. The proposal would occasionally save a few > keystokes but comes at the expense of giving Python a more Perlish look and a > more arcane feel. I am also -1. > One of the things I like about Python is that I can walk non-programmers > through the code and explain what it does. The examples in PEP 505 look like > a step in the wrong direction. They don't "look like Python" and make me > feel like I have to decrypt the code to figure-out what it does. I had occasional to speak with someone very involved in Rust development. They have a process roughly similar to our PEPs. One of the things he told me, which I found very interesting and have been mulling over for PEPs is, they require a section in their specification discussion how any new feature will be taught, both to new Rust programmers and experienced ones. I love the emphasis on teachability. Sometimes I really miss that when considering some of the PEPs and the features they introduce (look how hard it is to teach asynchronous programming). Cheers, -Barry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com