Fedora 30 Planning To Enable Python Generators By Default

[creative]

I really really like Fedora 29 a lot. I got everything up and running that I needed, its a superb distro. However I could no get past the fact that after disabling everything that I did not want it consumed close to 800MB of ram using lightdm with xfce4. I was thinking you have to be joking I was trying to trim the fat as much as I could but I could not find the rest of it. That was without any apps loaded like steam or any browsers.

[Luke_Wolf]

And how do you think it acquired that monopoly? It was and is the best language for the job. I'd love to see how the future of compile-to-js works out though. Hopefully there is a way to make everyone happy. (including me, as I'd like to be able to write lisp also)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

no.

Javascript has a monopoly because in the early days of The Web, Mozilla invented Javascript and from that point on was unwilling to provide language support other than through a shitty plugin API that Google has spent the past decade attempting to fix and get Mozilla to accept the fixes for which currently now exists as WebAssembly, With Google having also offered up the Dart language which Mozilla refused to even consider.

Javascript has a monopoly purely because of NIH.

[cynical]

Garbage language used by garbage tier programmers.

I've had to replace some dimwitted twenty year old's Python infrastructure code too many times over the years. It's like someone with a sick sense of humor decided it would be hilarious to bring the clusterfuck that is Javascript to scripting languages.

What's a scripting language?

[cynical]

My intuition is that the most disciplined languages with the most sophisticated type systems would have conquered every space in our industry except bleeding edge performance decades ago. And here we are, with PHP as the most popular server side language on the web and Javascript/Node and Python as wildly popular. My intuition was wrong.

That's super interesting because I don't find it intuitive at all. For me, maximum expressiveness and flexibility would naturally be more popular. A sophisticated type system is just more distracting detail that you have to carry around in your head in addition to the problem at hand. It gets in the way of just trying things out when you are likely not going to keep the system around anyway. I think there is an underlying difference in personality that results in people favoring either systems programming or web development. Newer languages seem to be trying to bridge the gap by offering type systems but not making them mandatory.

Javascript effectively has a monopoly on client side scripting on the web, and so it has become a golden hammer for web devs, regardless of it's quality or lack thereof.

And how do you think it acquired that monopoly? It was and is the best language for the job. I'd love to see how the future of compile-to-js works out though. Hopefully there is a way to make everyone happy. (including me, as I'd like to be able to write lisp also)

[TLE02]

Garbage language used by garbage tier programmers

...and we're back en track...

[nanonyme]

Ugh, that Fedora document is clearly written by someone who has trouble with the concept of UX and were just given mandatory field. Users do not read package metadata. The UX impact would literally be to have fewer broken packages. Not that I've hit broken packages on Fedora

[BeardedGNUFreak]

Garbage language used by garbage tier programmers.

I've had to replace some dimwitted twenty year old's Python infrastructure code too many times over the years. It's like someone with a sick sense of humor decided it would be hilarious to bring the clusterfuck that is Javascript to scripting languages.

[fuzz]

Another thing you might be missing is the huge numbers of programmers that arent that aren’t that smart theory wise. This isn’t a slight but rather an observation that a good part of the Python world is people programming that are trained in other professional fields. Python is big in engineering, science and Astronomy for this very reason, that is easy for people without a computer science background. That is people that don’t know nor do they care about theory. Well computer science theory anyways.

So true. Lots of various groups are picking up python now days and don't care at all about the software development methodologies, nor do they have the understanding or appreciation of why they are in place.

It would be interesting to see software development turn into a more rigorous field of actual engineering, but I don't see it happening any time soon. Especially since you don't even need degrees or typical education to become a good software developer.

Maybe we'll see the field move into two more distinct subsets, with professional software engineers at one end of the spectrum.

[TLE02]

Wow. A programming language discussion that hasn't descended into flames. This is a good start for 2019.

Still. While I know that it was not the main theme here, I'm always a little sad when people, in my view, misrepresent Python language design criteria. Making Python easy to learn isn't a persistent design criteria. Focussing on readability by language design is (which as a side effect makes it easier to learn). Of course, any language can be learned to read, but not all equally well. Python is pretty close to plain English or pseudo code, which seams to be a good information density to read at...

Furthermore. The focus in readability/(functionality per line of code balance) isn't only helpful for beginners. What was that quote again? If debugging is twice as hard as programming, and I'm programming to the best of my abilities, how will I ever debug it. A focus on appropriate functionality density helps there as well.

[Michael_S]

That sounds like people with a computer science background are more proficient and produce higher quality code.
Sadly the likelihood of getting unmaintainable crap served is high - no matter where the person comes from.
Sorry for being blunt - but it's frustrating and doesn't support your theory.

Actually, I think that fits what he (or she, whatever) wrote. He said a lot of programmers aren't good about theory. He didn't say they make bad code, and neither did he say that people who understand and use type systems automatically make better code.

To circle back to my earlier point, this is where I think languages that support a spectrum of options might work best. So you can get things done without understanding Monads and Context Free Grammars and dependent types, but you have the option to add all of the discipline and academic rigor you want later without having to rewrite your whole project in an entirely different language.