1. 2

    This was a nice read! Really interesting to get that historical context.

    1. 3

      Congratulations @alynpost !

      1. 2

        The insertion-order preservation nature of dict objects is now an official part of the Python language spec.

        My ruby friends will finally stop laughing at me

        Does this mean that OrderedDict will be phased out?

        1. 1

          That’s a great question, I think there’s still a place for OrderedDict. Dict isn’t getting anything beyond the insertion-order guarantee, whereas OrderedDict has a bunch of other things going on like reversed(). There’s some more on this stackoverflow question. Also, there is a pretty interesting mailing list thread that gets into this a little bit, though from the perspective of 3.6 (which introduced some of this).

          1. 1

            I recall perl5 having a feature shuffling hash keys for security reasons. Python2 also had similar problem. So, is that safe?

            1. 2

              That’s a different issue involving forcing hash collisions to trigger pathological run time behavior. This has nothing to do with the hash function, but rather just adds a level of indirection in the storage to save memory. A side effect of that is it’s easy to preserve insertion order.

          1. 2

            For work I’m going to be learning about react-native in order to be able to start being able to do some IC work on an existing project. My hope is that fires don’t start and subsequently interrupt this. We’ll see.

            For not-work, this week I have to get some audio editing done for my podcast. If I can squeeze it in I’d like to also get some writing time in.

            1. 3

              Some parts of this make me think of a book I’m reading right now, ‘You are not a gadget’ by Lanier. The quote in this thread about making computers more human literate versus getting people to be more computer literate makes me think a lot about a question brought up by the book: ‘are we building a digital utopia for people or machines?’ It seems valid to me to want these things considered by those designing products like computers and the software that runs on them which have become so ubiquitous.

              1. 2

                Yup. Lanier is on the same wavelength as Ted Nelson, Alan Kay, and a lot of the general computers-for-the-people crowd. (He used to be the most visible guy in this group, during the 90s, though I think the current title-holder is Brett Victor.) All of those guys are pretty influential on the growing community of humanist-tech people on the fediverse.

                Currently, a lot of the rhetoric is around nice things that used to exist in the industry that have gone away. However, Ted Nelson, Doug Englebart, J. R. Licklider, and Alan Kay have been saying this stuff before there was an industry – so the extent to which the utopian ideal of human-centric computing was ever historically achieved is only relevant insomuch as it’s an indication of the ease with which such ideas could be implemented again in the future.