I feel that this excuse is being trotted out too much. Most engineers never get to choose the programming language used for 90% of their professional projects.

And when Python is a mainstream language on top of which large, globally known websites, AI tools, core system utilities, etc are built, we should give up the purity angle and be practical.

Even the new performance push in Python land is a reflection of this. A long time ago some optimizations were refused in order to not complicate the default Python implementation.

▲

drob518 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You’re always free to create your own Python-like language that caters more toward your goals. No excuses, then.

▲

oblio 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If you're a contributor to Python, my apologies.

	▲	drob518 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I’m not a Python contributor, so no need to apologize to me. But if you have strong ideas about what Python should be, perhaps you should step up and contribute that code rather than saying that others are offering excuses for why they won’t deliver what you want. I have worked on other open source projects where users were very entitled, to the point of demanding that the project team deliver them certain features. It’s not fun. It’s ironic that open source often brings out both the best and the worst in people. Suggesting changes and new features is fine, even critical to a strong roadmap. But we all need to realize that maintainers may have other goals and there’s no obligation on their part to implement anything. The beauty of open source is that you can customize or fork as much as you want to match your goals. But then you’re responsible for doing the work and if your changes are public you may have your own set of users demanding their own favorite changes.