maegul

it's the sort of tool that is really just fundamental now and should be ubiquitous and promoted and taught and talked about every where there is knowledge work. Even more so as there's a great open source version of the tool.

Oh yea, I hear you.

What your point does though is open up the discussion about whether enforcement makes financial sense in isolation. And once you open that door, the whole becomes uncomfortable for a lot of people who are stuck in a simple black-and-white justice mentality, where "do what you're supposed, pay what they charge, or be punished" is all there is to making the world work well. You know, "law and order" types.

You're trying to talk about incentives. For many though that's a very dangerous slippery slope. So I'm trying to get a head of that and wonder if the end of that slippery slop is actually a demonstrably good thing.

I remember hearing rumours during the role out that tech employees were found asking for help on forums in ways that weren’t promising for the health and talent of the people building it.

But yea, it’s the embarrassment of this sort of stuff that must be masking the real financials of PT and how viable a free system would be.

Yea I’ve kept track of how often I’ve encountered inspectors, and most of the time it’d be worth it to not get the ticket or not tap on. Sometimes though I’ve noticed an increase in the number of inspectors that would definitely shift the equation. Also train stations with gates complicate the matter.

I don’t know if it’s out there, but I’d personally like to know how the finances come out for making PT free. You obviously lose revenue, but also all the overhead of paying for inspectors and for all of the ticketing infrastructure. I also wonder if the part that makes the finances work is all the fines collected, which would be pretty fucking shithouse if true.

The catch is that the whole system is effectively centralised on BlueSky backend services (basically the relay). So while the protocol may be standardised and open, and interpreted with decentralised components, they’ll control the core service. Which means they can unilaterally decide to introduce profitable things like ads and charging for features.

The promise of the system though is that it provides for various levels of independence that can all connect to each other, so people with different needs and capabilities can all find their spot in the ecosystem. Whether that happens is a big question. Generally I’d say I’m optimistic about the ideas and architecture, but unsure about whether the community around it will get it to what I think it should be.

Suspicion is totally fair re BlueSky IMO. The system they’ve design seems to me (and others AFAICT) to have the potential to include interconnected components or sections with various degrees of independence.

The elephant in the room, which I point out on BlueSky whenever I can, is that no one seems to really be trying to build the hard parts of that out. Which is a shame because it could be interesting.

EG, there’s a chance that a hybridised system running both BlueSky’s protocol and the fediverse’s could be viable and quite useful. Add to that the integration with some E2EE, and it finally feels like an actual attempt at building something new for the modern internet.

Fortunately there is some noise around these ideas, so hopefully their system can outlast their finances. But yea, a rug pull is definitely not out of the question.

Oh I’m with you there! And otherwise totally understandable.

I think for python tooling the choice is Python Vs Rust. C isn’t in the mix either.

That seems fair. Though I recall Mumba making headway (at least in the anaconda / conda space) and it is a C++ project. AFAIU, their underlying internals have now been folded into conda, which would mean a fairly popular, and arguably successful portion of the tooling ecosystem (I tended to reach for conda and recommend the same to many) is reliant on a C++ foundation.

On the whole, I imagine this is a good thing as the biggest issue Conda had was performance when trying to resolve packaging environments and versions.

So, including C++ as part of C (which is probably fair for the purposes of this discussion), I don't think C is out of the mix either. Should there ever be a push to fold something into core python, using C would probably come back into the picture too.

I think there’s a survivor bias going on here.

Your survivorship bias point on rust makes a lot of sense ... there's certainly some push back against its evangelists and that's fair (as someone who's learnt the language a bit). Though I think it's fair to point out the success stories are "survivorship" stories worth noting.

But it seems we probably come back to whether fundamental tooling should be done in python or a more performant stack. And I think we just disagree here. I want the tooling to "just work" and work well and personally don't hold nearly as much interest in being able to contribute to it as I do any other python project. If that can be done in python, all the better, but I'm personally not convinced (my experience with conda, while it was a pure python project, is informative for me here)

Personally I think python should have paid more attention to both built-in tooling (again, I think it's important to point out how much of this is simply Guido's "I don't want to do that" that probably wouldn't be tolerated these days) and built-in options for more performance (by maybe taking pypy and JIT-ing more seriously).

Maybe the GIL-less work and more performant python tricks coming down the line will make your argument more compelling to people like me.

(Thanks very much for the chat BTW, I personally appreciate your perspective as much as I'm arguing with you)

Funny to only ask/report on Zendaya if she’d come back after Messiah.

Yep! And likely the lesson to take from it for Python in general. The general utility of a singular foundation that the rest of the ecosystem can be built out from.

Even that it’s compiled is kinda beside the point. There could have been a single Python tool written in Python and bundled with its own Python runtime. But Guido never wanted to do projects and package management and so it’s been left as the one battery definitely not included.

I feel like this is conflating two questions now.

1. Whether to use a non-Python language where appropriate
2. Whether to use rust over C, which is already heavily used and fundamental in the ecosystem (I think we can put cython and Fortran to the side)

I think these questions are mostly independent.

If the chief criterion is accessibility to the Python user base, issue 2 isn’t a problem IMO. One could argue, as does @eraclito@feddit.it in this thread, that in fact rust provides benefits along these lines that C doesn’t. Rust being influenced by Python adds weight to that. Either way though, people like and want to program in rust and have provided marked success so far in the Python ecosystem (as eraclito cites). It’s still a new-ish language, but if the core issue is C v Rust, it’s probably best to address it on those terms.

If there is a platform that does it better, I bet people will start to notice.

Yea ... I suspect it's a protocol problem more than any one platform, because there's just too much flexibility in the protocol and so any inter-platform transfer is necessarily noisy. Multiplied by the number of platforms, and you get quite a bit of noise.

To your point though, a new platform that kinda does it all on its own could likely take off quite well and then set a new de facto standard around how to do things. Bonfire seemed to be that, and may still be. AFAIU, they're trying to solve performance issues right now before properly opening up.