zlacker

[return to "How Python grew from a language to a community"]
1. musica+ji1[view] [source] 2025-08-04 06:47:26
>>lumpa+(OP)
I don't want a community - I want a programming language. Preferably one that doesn't throw away billions of lines of existing code just because.
◧◩
2. doesnt+Ri1[view] [source] 2025-08-04 06:54:29
>>musica+ji1
There are countless dead programming languages without communities you can pick then.
◧◩◪
3. rusk+Tj1[view] [source] 2025-08-04 07:08:35
>>doesnt+Ri1
Ruby and Perl are great examples of massively popular languages that withered because the language/platform outpaced the community.

If the first question you’re asking yourself looking at a code base is “what version is this/do I know this version” then that language is not facilitating you.

The successful languages are ones where “the community” prioritises backward compatibility. Java, C, Python have backward compatibility spanning decades. There’s a few discontinuities (lambdas in Java 8, Python 3, C++) but in most cases there’s a clear mapping back to the original. Python 3 is an exception to this but the migration window was something like 15 years…

Busy engineers, scientists and academics have little interest in keeping up to date with language features. A computer and a programming language are a tool for a job and the source code is just an intermediate artifact. These are your “community”, and the stakeholders in your success.

◧◩◪◨
4. melago+so1[view] [source] 2025-08-04 07:59:31
>>rusk+Tj1
Perl have almost perfect backward compatibility, but small community and bad renown are not so good.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. DonHop+1p1[view] [source] 2025-08-04 08:05:23
>>melago+so1
Backwards compatibility is terrible if what you're being backwards compatible with is terrible.
[go to top]