Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
novov | on: Python 3.15: features that didn't make the headlines
Empirically, I have used the current accepted way to do lazy imports (import statement inside a function) before AI coding was even a mainstream thing, for personal code that sometimes needs a heavy import and sometimes doesn’t.

The lazy statement would be an improvement as it allows one to see all the imports at the top where you expect them to be.

afH12 | parent
As a now deleted comment pointed out, lazy imports had been requested forever. They were rejected forever and were accepted just when BigCorps wanted them.

Python-dev now is paid to shore up the failed Instagram stack.

zem | root | parent | next
both lazy imports and free threading have been proposed ages ago, they both went through several iterations before a good design was settled upon and made it into the language.

in the case of lazy imports the big corps were the ones doing the experimentation and iteration. the feature didn't make it into the language "just when big corps wanted them"; the instagram stack you allude to already had its own fork of cpython with lazy imports added years ago, and that is not the design that ended up getting adopted by upstream cpython, though some of the people working on it also collaborated on the PEP that finally did make it in.

Daishiman | root | parent | next
It was accepted just as multiple large corporations with competent teams of internal tool departments ended up forking the interpreter to support lazy imports and demonstrated empirically that the idea has merit.
brookst | root | parent
I too am outraged that a product would prioritize its biggest users.
saghm | root | parent
Is the biggest user larger than the combined set of individual users who had asked for (or would benefit from) the same thing? I honestly don't know, but I don't think that things are always as simple as you're implying in a world where we have the collective action problem.
brookst | root | parent
If you’re asking some some kind of abstract moral value sense, I have idea.

If you’re asking whether project leads give more weight to a single, tangible, vocal stakeholder than they do to unknown numbers of anonymous and lightly-engaged stakeholders? Yes.

WorldMaker | root | parent | next
Not to mention when the single, tangible, vocal stakeholder can also be asked to be responsible for documentation (PEPs, etc) and PRs. Especially in open source there is a huge difference between "a lot of people asked about this" and "one person asked about this, but was passionate enough about it and open enough to following the process and the feedback loops to champion it all the way across the finish line".
saghm | root | parent
I don't have any issue with what you're saying if that's what happened. There's quite a gap between that sort of reasoned explanation and treating concerns about large stakeholders versus large numbers of small one with derision.
saghm | root | parent
I mean, yes, demonstrably, the phenomenon you're describing happens. Your previous comment seems pretty sarcastically dismissing the idea that someone could disagree with this being a good thing though, and I was making a counterargument against the underlying opinion that seemed apparent.