>However, many are subjective preferences
Certainly, it is titled "Problems I Have" for a reason. :-) I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but it is what I feel I personally lack when using it quite a lot.
> I imagine this statement could offend some of the smart and hard-working people who are working on improving the python language.
That was certainly not my intention -- as stated, I do love the language and appreciate all work going into it. I do not intend to undermine their efforts, just point out some of my perceived design flaws.
>- the community does not agree with the author's subjective idea of what Python should look like
I think we all agree there should be a good solution to concurrency (and "stackless" variants which power eventlet, etc. have been used for ages; as has Twisted, of which asyncio is not a sufficient clone.), parallelism, etc.
The standard library in general encourages use of higher-order functions and concepts borrowed primarily from FPLs (see: comprehensions, map/reduce, sort, etc.) I could not imagine seeing them backtracking on this -- it only helps them to go further in that direction.
>- the solutions to a problem (I'm thinking GIL) come with a lot of consequences which are not readily acceptable
I did not propose a solution because there are many, as you note; there are, however, implementations with decent solutions like AFAIK Jython.
>- solving some of the issues would exacerbate backwards compatibility.
Such as what?
Certainly, it is titled "Problems I Have" for a reason. :-) I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but it is what I feel I personally lack when using it quite a lot.
> I imagine this statement could offend some of the smart and hard-working people who are working on improving the python language.
That was certainly not my intention -- as stated, I do love the language and appreciate all work going into it. I do not intend to undermine their efforts, just point out some of my perceived design flaws.
>- the community does not agree with the author's subjective idea of what Python should look like
I think we all agree there should be a good solution to concurrency (and "stackless" variants which power eventlet, etc. have been used for ages; as has Twisted, of which asyncio is not a sufficient clone.), parallelism, etc.
The standard library in general encourages use of higher-order functions and concepts borrowed primarily from FPLs (see: comprehensions, map/reduce, sort, etc.) I could not imagine seeing them backtracking on this -- it only helps them to go further in that direction.
>- the solutions to a problem (I'm thinking GIL) come with a lot of consequences which are not readily acceptable
I did not propose a solution because there are many, as you note; there are, however, implementations with decent solutions like AFAIK Jython.
>- solving some of the issues would exacerbate backwards compatibility.
Such as what?