Preach, brother.

I’m cautiously optimistic that JAX (or something like JAX) can save the python programming language from stagnation by essentially building a feature-complete reimplementation of the language with JIT and autograd baked into the core. I’m praying that Google diverts like 10% of TF’s budget to JAX.

That way I don’t have to learn to love a bunch of unnecessary semi colons and “end”s littering up my beautiful zero-indexed code ;-)

Julia code almost never has semicolons. Semicolons can be used at the REPL to suppress printing, but actual Julia code does not normally use semicolons.

I personally like the "end"s because I like the symmetry and they're prettier than curly braces. Also, there are some syntax color themes that color the "end"s in a darker color in order to de-emphasize the "end"s, which can be nice depending on your taste.

That was mostly meant as a joke, thus the “;-)”

I don’t really care much about syntax choices, but my small complaint about “end” is that it takes up a line which reduces the amount of business-logic code I can fit on one screen, especially if you ever get into lots of nested loops and conditionals.

To each their own, but I usually try to refactor when I hit too many nested loops or branched statements - it's usually a sign of missing some abstraction or trying to be too clever.

@Sukera

Fair, but, if I break up all the loops and if statements into functions, those functions still have “end”s

For the record, I'm a fan of both Python and Julia (though, I believe that the latter is not yet ready for general programming mainstream industrial use). As for Python "stagnating as a scientific programming _language_", it is totally understandable. It tries to be the language of choice for everyone. However, as we know, "you can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time".

My point is, Python is no longer _trying_ to please scientific programming circles. It is developing, just not in these directions.

Understood, fair enough.

> but these days the development focus seems to be on type hints and unicode support.

It's a result of the language maturing. The tradeoff is between groundbreaking innovation and being a stable language with a large user base. You can't have it both ways.

There are features Python is missing as a scientific language, that are not a focus. Proper multicore support, GIL, any static safety (which type hints sort of address but not really).

It was fine in Python 2, it was cheap and cheerful. It feels likes Python 3 is running out of ideas for improvement, and yet these are not at all in the scope of work.

Cf Julia that treats all these features as first class problems.

I am wondering if this is really a problem? I just parallelized some numerical code and instead of threads (Gil problem), I use processes. As far as I understand the only drawback would be that the parallel items cannot share memory, well do you do that? I find it hard to reason about correctness in these cases.

This works a bit. But sometimes sharing memory is useful. Sometimes you may want to parallelise a local function, or a callable class instance - except you can't.

And when I say, "it works", that's clearly on Linux and Mac. On Windows multiprocessing is very severely stunted by lack of forking.

Meanwhile, probably even my watch supports threads.