[woodruffw]

This isn't really a substantive comment, and to at least one extent it's trivially falsifiable (15 years is before Python 3 became usable, so that alone is a "serious" change in the language).

> pluggable GC and JIT would go along way

One of the points mentioned in the linked discussion is explicitly about ensuring that the JIT design enables multiple implementations.

[sitkack]

Python 2 to 3 transition was also unserious.

The flippant attitude of cpythons wrt the standard library is also unfortunate.

Please with your substantive comment comment.

[woodruffw]

It seems to have been serious enough; I don't think Python would have succeeded as a language if they hadn't done Python 3.

> Please with your substantive comment comment.

I think binning things as drama isn't substantive, particularly when noting about the linked conversation seems dramatic. I also think they're actually talking about the thing you want (pluggable JIT), so the objection seems incongruous.

[anticorporate]

> I don't think Python would have succeeded as a language if they hadn't done Python 3.

I assumed Python 2 was pretty much ubiquitous and that the world wasn't adopting Python 3 very quickly for a long time, but I do wonder if the applications I was working with a decade and a half ago (ArcGIS, Blender, Civ4, lots of Red Hat system tools, etc.) biased that viewpoint.

[cdavid]

That's debatable. We can't go back in history, but if it were not for ML/data science, I believe python 3 would have killed python. At that time web dev / CLI utilities were major use cases, and that was the time golang became mainstream.

Data science, and then ofc DL being done through python just when python 3 was kinda usable (around 3.3/3.4) was a struck of luck timing-wise.