Martijn Faassen

I think that's a great reason then! AI has really given Python a whole new life. I personally find pythonic style[0] easy to follow but really odd and uncomfortable to code in. It's certainly different enough to give you new challenges. [0] https://blog.startifact.com/posts/older/what-is-pythonic.html

A better intro to them is at https://blog.startifact.com/posts/succinct/

There is a better alternative to libxslt - xee[1][2]. It was discussed[3] on HN before. [1] https://blog.startifact.com/posts/xee/ [2] https://github.com/Paligo/xee [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43502291

Anything could be supported with sufficient effort, but streaming hasn't been my priority so far and I haven't explored it in detail. I want to get XSLT 3.0 working properly first. There's a potential alternative to streaming, though - succinct storage of XML in memory: https://blog.startifact.com/posts/succinct/ I've built a succinct XML library named Xoz (not integrated into Xee yet): https://github.com/Paligo/xoz The parsed in memory overhead goes down to 20% of the original XML text in my small experiments. There's a lot of questions on how this functions in the real world, but this library also has very interesting properties like "jump to the descendant with this tag without going through intermediaries".

So I get you don't use Python as well. https://blog.startifact.com/posts/older/what-is-pythonic.html https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

There are some backend implementations: http://blog.startifact.com/posts/the-emerging-graphql-python-stack.htm…

Yes, it is. Coming to this mess from the joy of bundler/gems, npm, or hell, even CPAN will ruin your afternoon. It is just an unfortunate circumstance of the community not efficiently converging on well designed standards quickly enough, and so, the rocky soil has sprouted strange twisty crops. There are articles on how the setuptools/distutils frankenhack pretty much set off the whole trainwreck that you see today, e.g.: http://blog.startifact.com/posts/older/a-history-of-python-packaging.h… Armin (the OP) has also written about this sad history previously: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2012/6/22/hate-hate-hate-everywhere/

Which statistics? I'm honestly curious. I presume you've read http://blog.startifact.com/posts/python-2-gravity.html? All the new python3/python2 libraries I've noticed adhoc recently have been doing the horrible 'polyglot' one-code-base-support-python2-and-python3 thing, or been in python2.

We are a product of our history - and the same goes with the community around any given technology, not to mention the technology itself. Understanding that history helps you to understand the mindset of the people who created the technology and why and how they designed it. Understanding that will in turn enable you to appreciate and utilize the strengths and weaknesses of said technology better. One good example: the Unix philosophy. Unix originated back in the 70s, with slow, expensive time-sharing computers, many of which still used printing teletypes. Any text output was expensive in that it used ink and paper and took a long time. Therefore the principle of silence was born: if a program doesn't need to say anything, it shouldn't. See also the principles of smallness and modularity - each program should do one (and only one) thing well, but it should be easy to combine different programs to suit one's needs. You simply couldn't run any very large programs back then, and later on it turned out that chaining several together was actually a pretty good design principle anyway. (For more details, see ESR's "The Art of Unix Programming".) Knowing this history will help one appreciate the philosophy, understanding the philosophy will help one write good programs for that context. Second example: take the Python language. Its community places a prime on "pythonicness" (http://blog.startifact.com/posts/older/what-is-pythonic.html), a set of guidelines/rules/principles that…