williamsmj

All of which is to say, the fact that most people are L5s, including people who've been there for a long time, is due entirely to the very recent introduction of leveling and the high bar for L6. It tells you nothing on its own about whether L5 is perceived as a terminal level.

You'd know better than us if you work there, and reading between the lines of your comment it sounds like maybe it is?

Seems like they forgot to put some services behind Cloudflare. CTO should be fired then. Oh, wait.

Not my area of engineering, so forgive me, but: is an external DDOS a plausible threat for competently engineered public service in 2025? I kind of got the impression those were solved problems in practice?

Or when he said the United States is "utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions over there"?

Or when he said "I am certainly anti-Israel, and I have become anti-Semitic"?

Or are there others?

https://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/07/opinion/l-roald-dahl-also...

(But if you prefer a book, https://www.amazon.com/Patrick-OBrian-Muster-Book-Aubrey-Mat... is very useful.)

2. To the extent you object to changes in the core language, the python maintainers do have a backwards compatibility statement and prominent timelines for deprecation. You may disagree with these, but they are public.

3. At the time it was written, the python 3 statement proposed dropping support for a version of python with known security problems and no plans for security updates. It seems like your argument is with the python 2 to python 3 transition, which feels like a conversation we've had here before.

The PEP proposes a deprecation timeline for exactly this.

There is a good chance it will fail to do that. See elsewhere in this thread.

Take that up with the consensus view of the python community, as reflected by python linters in their default configuration, almost all of which warn on bare except.

The debate in the PEP is whether this should be a syntax error. The debate about whether it is good style is over though.

> It's also not worth breaking production code over this.

Agreed.

Java Throwable ~= Python BaseException.

Java Exception ~= Python Exception.

The problem here is that a bare except catches something similar to Throwable, not something similar to Exception.

2. Python does not use semantic versioning. 3.13 is a different major version to 3.12.

There are two "problems" this PEP is trying to solve.

One is that bare excepts are permitted. The argument against this is that explicit is better than implicit. A matter of taste, but I don't find this convincing.

The other problem is what bare excepts mean. Bare excepts are syntactic sugar for `except BaseException`. This means that an application containing a bare `except` followed by the vast majority of real-world error handling will continue to run even if SystemExit or KeyboardInterrupt is raised. This is almost always a bug.

I do find this second argument convincing, and I wish Python did not contain this design wart.

If I could go back in time and change Python syntax, it would make it hard for people to silently treat these special interrupts as "handleable" like regular errors. The tiny set of applications that really can and should handle them (e.g. TUIs or the mailman example discussed in the final section of the PEP) can explicitly do so with e.g. `except KeyboardInterrurpt` or even `except BaseException`.

But I agree with the consensus here that this does not rise to the level of something being worth a backwards-incompatible change.

In other words, your comment is an argument for the proposal!

I don't think it's a good enough argument to make a backwards incompatible change. This is a wart Python has to live with now. But I do think it's a shame that bare excepts behave in a way that is almost always a bug.