From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bengt Richter Subject: Re: Python 2 end-of-life? Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 14:16:53 -0800 Message-ID: <20191129221653.GC80736@PhantoNv4ArchGx.localdomain> References: <20191126215145.GA1044@PhantoNv4ArchGx.localdomain> <20191129060732.GA1094@PhantoNv4ArchGx.localdomain> <20191129134239.GA77005@PhantoNv4ArchGx.localdomain> Reply-To: Bengt Richter Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55724) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iaoZd-00069k-HM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 17:17:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iaoZc-0002SZ-5f for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 17:17:13 -0500 Received: from imta-36.everyone.net ([216.200.145.36]:37126 helo=imta-38.everyone.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iaoZb-0002Ru-Ta for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 17:17:12 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: zimoun Cc: Guix Devel Hi simon, On +2019-11-29 15:12:49 +0100, zimoun wrote: > Hi Bengt, >=20 > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 14:42, Bengt Richter wrote: >=20 > > > And what do we win? More reproducibility? More bootstrappability? > > > > https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/C._A._R._Hoare#The_Emperor's_Old_Clothe= s > > > > The first quote in particular ;-) >=20 > I agree with the quote. :-) > But it does not answer to the question. Because your proposal appears > to me more complicated than simple. ;-) > If you don't see that we win something by pursuing the goal of simplicity that Tony Hoare describes: There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult. It demands the same skill, devotion, insight, and even inspiration as the discovery of the simple physical laws which underlie the complex phenomena of nature. then perhaps you sensibly prefer to avoid having the "far more difficult" goal making your life as a packager "more complicated than simple ;-)". I'm afraid I am not so sensible, so I am drawn to challenges that I mostly fail at. ( But mm, aha, yes!: the good moments! :) Chacun =C3=A0 son go=C3=BBt -- or different strokes for different folks, as the hippies used to say. Showing my age :) > Well, my answer would be: python -c 'import this' ;-) > [...] > Now is better than never. > Although never is often better than *right* now. > If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea. > If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea. > -- Too many knobs is worse than no knobs, although according to Mae West, "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful." ;-) >=20 >=20 > All the best, > simon --=20 Regards, Bengt Richter