A Python for Future Generations

Transcript

1. 1.

   A Python for Future Generations Armin @mitsuhiko Ronacher

2. 2.

   Hi, I'm Armin ... and I do Open Source, lots

   of Python and SaaS Flask Sentry …
3. 3.

   … and here is where you can find me twitter.com/@mitsuhiko

   github.com/mitsuhiko lucumr.pocoo.org/
4. 4.

   ‘raising awareness’

5. 5.

   the grass is always greener somewhere

6. 6.

   … what's Python anyway?

7. 7.

   Python is whatever cpython does

8. 8.

   behavior & stdlib

9. 9.

   a + b = ?

10. 10.

    a.__add__(b) ?

11. 11.

    type(a).__add__(a, b) ?

12. 12.

    a.__class__.__add__(a, b) ?

13. 13.

    they are all not necessarily correct

14. 14.

    1 0 LOAD_FAST 0 (a) 3 LOAD_FAST 1 (b) 6

    BINARY_ADD
15. 15.

    which is “obj as num”.add or “obj as sequence”.concat

16. 16.

    gave us unclear behavior when subclassing builtins

17. 17.

    there is no “+” operator

18. 18.

    there is PyNumber_Add and PySequence_Concat

19. 19.

    does it matter?

20. 20.

    debatable but … kinda?

21. 21.

    pypy, jython all copy the quirks because

22. 22.

    they want high compatibility because

23. 23.

    users would not use it if it was not compatible

    because
24. 24.

    prevents more innovative language changes

25. 25.

    Python in 30 Years?

26. 26.

    make the python we use more like the python we

    teach
27. 27.

    it's a common story

28. 28.

    python developers value compatibility

29. 29.

    distutils implements original setup.py

30. 30.

    setuptools monkey patches distutils to support Python eggs

31. 31.

    pip monkey patches setuptools on the fly to manage python

    packages
32. 32.

    wheel monkey patches setuptools to build wheels instead of eggs

33. 33.

    cffi monkey patches setuptools and distutils to build extensions

34. 34.

    snaek monkey patches cffi to build Rust extension modules

35. 35.

    the GIL

36. 36.

    the only reason removing the GIL is hard is backwards

    compatibility
37. 37.

    looks like we're not good at breaking compatibility

38. 38.

    our only attempt was both radical and not radical enough

39. 39.

    future of “scripting” languages

40. 40.

    they are here to stay

41. 41.

    but they will look different

42. 42.

    standards + ecosystem

43. 43.

    if we want to be here in 30 years, we

    need to evolve
44. 44.

    where we did well

45. 45.

    interpreter code is readable

46. 46.

    ease of compilation

47. 47.

    extensibility

48. 48.

    flat dependency chains

49. 49.

    runtime introspection

50. 50.

    what we should probably do

51. 51.

    easier and clearer language behavior

52. 52.

    looking elsewhere

53. 53.

    JavaScript

54. 54.

    Rust

55. 55.

    both are new and modern both learned from mistakes

56. 56.

    packaging and modules

57. 57.

    packaging and modules package.json Cargo.toml

58. 58.

    packaging and modules • metadata is runtime available • by

    default no code execution on installation • (optionally) multiple versions per library • public vs private / peer dependencies
59. 59.

    packaging and modules • we're moving away from setup.py install

    • pip is a separate tool • wheels • multi-version would require metadata access where are we now?
60. 60.

    packaging and modules • we can steal from others •

    can target python 3 only if needed realistic change?
61. 61.

    language standard

62. 62.

    language standard • javascript: clarify interpreter behavior • simplified language

    subset? • generally leaner language? • more oversight over language development
63. 63.

    language standard • maybe micropython and other things can lead

    the way • community can kill extension modules for CFFI realistic change?
64. 64.

    unicode

65. 65.

    unicode utf-8 everywhere wtf-8 where needed

66. 66.

    unicode • very little guessing • rust: operating system string

    type • rust: free from utf-8 to os-string and bytes • explicit unicode character APIs • emojis mean no basic plane
67. 67.

    packaging and modules • we would need to kill string

    slicing • utf-8 everywhere is straightforward • kill surrogate-escapes for a real os string? realistic change?
68. 68.

    extension modules

69. 69.

    extension modules more cffi less libpython

70. 70.

    extension modules • tricky for things like numpy • generally

    possible for many uses realistic change?
71. 71.

    linters & type annotations

72. 72.

    linters & type annotations babel, eslint, … typescript, flow, …

73. 73.

    linters & type annotations rustfmt, gofmt, prettier, …

74. 74.

    linters & type annotations • maybe? • typing in Python

    3 might go this way realistic change?
75. 75.

    what you can do!

76. 76.

    abuse the language less

77. 77.

    sys._getframe(N).f_locals['_wat'] = 42

78. 78.

    class X(dict):

79. 79.

    stop writing non cffi extensions

80. 80.

    stop being clever with sys.modules

81. 81.

    awareness is the first step

82. 82.

    QA &