But then there's also the semantics. When something that looks like Python parameter passing actually passes a copy of the argument, it's not really Python at all.
What's even more interesting? disconcerting? is that Mojo has two different ways of defining functions, and the one that most resembles Python already has this change.
I'm all for new languages borrowing the best concepts from previous languages, and distancing themselves from them a bit.
It has been obvious for a couple of decades that CPython is itself a Schelling point and that anything promising full Python compatibility can't keep up and will eventually die, so (to me) this bold unreachable claim seems like an unforced error on the part of the Mojo team.
> Even if the syntax is not a one-to-one, it's better than nothing.
To some extent this may be true. But back in the day, when I was working on projects where I would use multiple languages throughout the day, the cost of switching between languages actually seemed lower when there was more distance between the languages, so...
> There is still Python Interop., which will be nice.
Interop between Python and not-quite-Python will be valuable, sure, but it would be even nicer if the language had enough good facilities that people didn't need to continually exit it.
But then there's also the semantics. When something that looks like Python parameter passing actually passes a copy of the argument, it's not really Python at all.
What's even more interesting? disconcerting? is that Mojo has two different ways of defining functions, and the one that most resembles Python already has this change.
I'm all for new languages borrowing the best concepts from previous languages, and distancing themselves from them a bit.
For example, this was discussed here recently: https://github.com/spylang/spy
It has been obvious for a couple of decades that CPython is itself a Schelling point and that anything promising full Python compatibility can't keep up and will eventually die, so (to me) this bold unreachable claim seems like an unforced error on the part of the Mojo team.
> Even if the syntax is not a one-to-one, it's better than nothing.
To some extent this may be true. But back in the day, when I was working on projects where I would use multiple languages throughout the day, the cost of switching between languages actually seemed lower when there was more distance between the languages, so...
> There is still Python Interop., which will be nice.
Interop between Python and not-quite-Python will be valuable, sure, but it would be even nicer if the language had enough good facilities that people didn't need to continually exit it.
Time will tell.