zlacker

>>lumpa+(OP)
The real question is how did Python avoid the toxicity of the Linux or bitcoin dev community (remember the block size debate?)

Though there was a developer who was forced to quit a while ago.

>>brcmth+3h1
I think the Bitcoin part is simple - it doesn't have the perverse incentives of an investment vehicle. Everyone's financial stake is indirect and diffuse, it's not likely that any given PEP is directly connected to a developer's bottom line (though presumably this happens occasionally).

>>maxbon+hj1
Big companies submit PEPs to force their will on Python. Meta and GIL removal.

>>brcmth+iv1
Who is pro-GIL...?

The point is that, unlike in the Bitcoin block size debacle, you don't have people who are pulling in different directions because it directly impacts their bottom line if Python does X or Y. There's no one who particularly profits from there being a GIL.

>>maxbon+ez1
Who is pro-GIL

Nobody is pro-GIL per se. But a lot of people were pro-No-Single-Threaded-Performance-Desegregation. The first GIL-removal patch was submitted all the way back against python 1.4, and regular attempts have been made ever since, but it wasn't possible to remove the GIL without making the single threaded performance of existing python code worse, so Guido and co. refused to accept them.