Python 3.8 Makes me Sad Again

So the author is sad because Python 3.8 fixes things... too late for their taste? And they, "as an author of another programming language" would've known better and never made these "mistakes" to begin with? Get off your high horse.

I don’t get the part about unordered maps. Python never promised ordered dicts (until 3.7) it wasn’t a secret nor did you have any reason to believe that they would be ordered.<p>I mean they’re ordered now and that provide some benefit in terms of simpler code in some cases, but it was never a problem as such.

<p><pre><code> “Somebody” ignored the wisdom of Lisp, which was “everything is an expression and evaluates to a value” (no statements vs expressions), and made assignment a statement in Python years ago. </code></pre> This was the philosophy of Algol. That is why &quot;:=&quot; was invented there. From Lex Fridman interview I understood that Guido was not educated enough to understand some issues, and tried to fix them afterwards. :-)

There is some valid criticism but, as pointed out, fixing language inconsistencies when there is a corpus of programs already running is not trivial.<p>Maybe when we decide to make Python 4.<p>&#x2F;me ducks

I don&#x27;t understand the parameter section. What fundamental mistake is python trying to remedy with the must-be-positional parameter?<p>I don&#x27;t get why you would want to force people to not name a parameter.<p>Like, why is it so bad that I write:<p><pre><code> myval = mydict.get(mykey, default=mydefault) </code></pre> Who does it help that this throws an error?

Is the author sad because Python 3.8 is fixing things? What would he rather have them do? Not fix things?<p>Or is he sad because millions of people around the world use Python instead of his shiny new esolang where he’s managed to get all the things right™?<p>Hindsight is always 20&#x2F;20. This kind of snark achieves nothing.

Why is it useful for maps to be sorted by insertion order?

&gt; My perspective is biased towards correctness and “WTF are you doing?”<p>What an arrogant and pompous thing to say.<p>That tells everything you need to know, the author thinks of themselves as some sort of intellectual God.

Q: Python 3.9 is better ?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.python.org&#x2F;3.9&#x2F;whatsnew&#x2F;3.9.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;docs.python.org&#x2F;3.9&#x2F;whatsnew&#x2F;3.9.html</a>

I get why a CI&#x2F;CD approach is taken with modern languages but you can&#x27;t revert changes with programmimg languages like you can with APIs. My view is, long-term supported new features are fine but deprecation of existing features and code breaking changes should be constrained to a major version change (like 2.7 -&gt; 3) and that should happen at most once in a decade.<p>I wish more programmers that work outside of the tech industry would contribute to these discussions.

Clarification: NGS sucks differently. That&#x27;s it.<p>Don&#x27;t know how you guys get from &quot;From my perspective, all languages suck, while NGS aims to suck less than the rest for the intended use cases&quot; to how NGS is generally good or generally better than other languages or did&#x2F;would avoid mistakes.<p>Note &quot;aims to suck less&quot;, not even &quot;sucks less&quot;.<p>Thanks, OP

&gt;This works because regular dicts have guaranteed ordering since Python 3.7<p>But the API is different! OrderedDict has more methods that have to do with order, and `reverse` works on its `.keys()` and `.values()`. Or did they fix this in 3.8?

PHP also had ordered maps from the start.

This is fairly low effort, and it doesn&#x27;t even take much effort to find flaws with Python.

Meh another shit-post for some clout.