: If i understand the premises of the meeting correctly - consortium
: coelescing, as well as technical discussions - i think we need to
: start discussing some projections of the shape of python development,
: including goals, focuses, etc.
: Ie, to what degree do the participants want to chart python's future,
: and what might some features of that chart be? (Personally, i'm not
: crazy about any sort of hard charting, and don't even expect that
: would be effective, but i do think it would be good to investigate
: what degree/aspects of charting *would* be helpful, and start to do
: it...)
: (My own, individual perspective is that there are some items that
: currently seem critical, eg resolving features for a "safe" python,
: and plans for addressing those sort of issues should be made explicit.
: There also, however, should be a room expressly set aside for spur-of-
: the-moment and emerging projects and goals, besides the currently
: apparent ones. I suspect that it would be good to begin to formulate
I like what I see in Python so far.
I find that I like languages that remain consistent to a coherent,
core design. Icon and Oberon-2 are possible examples. I don't
like languages where any group with enough votes gets to stick
his/her favorite feature in whether it fits or not. C++ is an
example. Elegant powerful languages, e.g. Icon, help me get my
work done. Complex langauges force or tempt me to spend more
time learning the language than doing useful work.
I know. You knew that. But sometimes people need to be reminded.
-- ---------------------- Dave Kuhlman Reify, Redwood City, CA Internet: dkuhlman@netcom.com Compuserve: 72470,116 ----------------------