Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

As much as I wanted to like this article (I remain optimistic about the future of Python as Python 3) wouldn't most of the compelling additional features suggested break backwards compatibility with current versions of Python 3? This strikes me more as a proposal for a Python 4 than a revitalization of Python 3.

edit: I wanted to respond to this myself, since upon rereading I no longer get the impression the proposed changes need 'break' backwards compatibility per se. For the suggestion on removing the GIL specifically, this would completely necessitate a revolution in the design of python programs such that even if, say, the libraries that had already been ported at the time of 3.2 still work in 3.9, their implementation would be senseless by 3.9 conventions.

To remove the GIL, you'd need to introduce proper atomicity to all of the standard library, and include concurrency checks for many data structures. And the GIL isn't really the enemy, if you are doing cpu intensive work, you'd use the C interface - which happens to not be affected by the GIL in the first place. This also happens to be how to get "more performance". Unfortunately this means you can't switch to pure JIT, because as PyPY have found out, you need to rewrite parts of the standard library that are written in C (like the crypto libraries).

Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact