To me it sounds like addressing a pain point for larger projects, moving the language forward, and adding something many in the community has long wanted (as evident by blog posts and articles, earlier type checking tool attempts, the acceptance of the relevant PEP, etc).
Yes and that sounds unfamiliar from Python cultural POV. Python used to be the language that didn't try to please everyone and kept a coherent design philosophy that resulted in a clean and simple language.
>Python used to be the language that didn't try to please everyone
On the contrary. I use Python professionally since 1997, and it has had all kinds of features added on for different needs, from decorators and generators to async and virtual environments, context managers, list comprehensions, dict comprehensions and what have you.
Of the languages I know of, only C# has had a similar pace of adding new stuff in to the core language (not just libraries).
When did Python shy away from adding new features?
It seems that Python didn't try to please only 2 categories of people: those who dislike significant whitespace, and those who want proper closures.
>and kept a coherent design philosophy that resulted in a clean and simple language
At this point I'd say that Python, with its full feature set, is as complex as a scripting language gets. Maybe Perl 6 trumps it, not sure -- but what you describe is closer to a language like Lua, or tcl or even Go than Python.
It's true that the pace of cruft accumulation is worrying lately. Note that I said "used to"! Personally I think it all started to go overboard around the introduction of list comprehensions when we had perfectly good map, filter and lambda.
> Yes and that sounds unfamiliar from Python cultural POV.
Addressing pain points is unfamiliar to the Python culture?
In practice, type intransparency is a serious problem – duck typing is only fun as long as everyone a) knows what a duck is and b) agrees on what it should do. Type hints make it a lot easier to work with opaque libraries and inside large codebases.
Take a 50-kg object (110 pounds) and carry it in your arms for an hour on a flat road. You will have done no work against gravity. You may complain that this is not how the word "work" is used in everyday life - and that you will have done a lot of "work" against gravity (preventing the object from falling to the ground). However, if you wish to discuss Physics and Mathematics, using terms that have precise definitions in those fields, you cannot object on the basis that these words do not have the same meaning as non-Physicist and non-Mathematicians ascribe to them.
Physicist's "intuition" (as you put it) is educated by codifying our observations into mathematical equations, using those equations to make predictions, and performing experiments to verify those predictions.
Simply 'flipping around the "argument"' is playing with words and has no usefulness from a scientific point of view; it is definitely not "more intuitive" (as you put it) since it has nothing to do with science.
It's an interesting thought exercise IMO. Keep in mind that QM is widely regarded as "counterintuitive" even by scientists, and as far as we can tell, it's the intuitions that are wrong. I.e. it's not QM that's crazy. QM is normal. We are crazy.
"Relativistic Inertial mass" (m' = ym) is a bogus term invented so as to make the equations look the same as the classical ones in some limited circumstances - namely, when a force is acting in the same direction as the relative velocity. If a force is acting in a different direction, to obtain a relation of the form F=mdp/dt, you need a different* so-called relativistic inertial mass.
I know of no one doing modern research in relativity using this obsolete concept.
> it is really impossible to completely test the theory scientifically.
This shows a misunderstanding of what science is about. You can set up control groups, that use different eating methods, but consuming the same amount of calories (and micro nutrients, etc.) over a given period of time. In some settings, double-blind experiments (with placebos) are indeed "better"; but it is not required to get scientifically valid results.
True, I may have over stated my point. A double blind with placebos test is the gold standard, and difficult to implement with humans when it comes to diets. Which is why I think there are so many different kinds of fad diets that come and go, which is sort of the point I was driving at. It is just really difficult to conclusively prove.
I think the main problem is that people are looking for some kind of silver bullet diet that will make them healthy and live long. So, since there's demand, there are other people providing them with it.
Of course it's just air, there's no such thing as a silver bullet diet. Health and longevity depends on so much more than just diet that there will never be such a thing.
But still, since there's money to be made by selling dummies miracle diets, there are some to sell. And since they can't sell the real thing because it can't be made, they do what they can to convince the customers that it is. Among other marketing tricks, pervert science so it looks like their snake oil is based on something more than just the will to make money from gullible people.
There might be some good science in the nutrition field. Sadly, it's drowned in a sea of wishful thinking, bad science and plain charlatanry...
Why? Print is a function instead of a statement? I don't do much python anymore, since I graduated from pygame to DirectX, but the differences in python 3 seem pretty minor, aside from needing external libs upgraded.
You don't need a treaty like that to drop import tariffs: this can be done by an individual country. This can be done unilaterally without losing any sovereignty - which is not the case for such trade agreements.
Really? Can you explain why? Everything I've read, including emails obtained through FOIA points out to increasing rights for corporations at the expense of rights of individuals and weakening of protection for populations on the environment front. So why should it be signed?