I wouldn't say Python is good _at_ vectorization so much as good _with_ it. It's also good with AI, web systems, etc, as a result of its "play well with others" philosophy, which pragmatically accepted from the start that no one language could be best for all purposes.
One of the best improvements to Python's memory model was extending it to allow sensible access to blobs of memory containing regular structures such as vectors and matrices, making it relatively easy to interface with and control already-available, well-tried, highly-optimised algorithms.
Given the many ways of creating virtual environments it's becoming more usual for a program's installation to create a specialist virtual environment just to support that application (pre-commit is. good example of this technique). Perhaps that'a a way ahead?
Well, this has all the signs of well-meaning but inexperienced developers seeing a market opportunity without appreciating the many difficult problems that will have to be solved to produce something that is secure, reliable and interoperable with current development ecosystems.
Rather than abuse them, we might perhaps use them as an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You misunderstand the concept of barter. It was actually an informal, unrecorded socially-based debt system. Read "Debt, the first 5,000 Years" for a good explanation.
In point of fact two companies were the primary contractors for the redesign of python.org, but since I am no longer in the loop I will commend you to wait for an upcoming PSF blog post that will give the details. Design was indeed a major input to the project.
Fine, so you have found a language you prefer to Python. Go use it. Never mind about PyPy, which gives you compiled execution speeds, never mind about the fact that Python 3 fully supports NumPy, SciPy, matplotlib and much of the infrastructure you claim to need. If threading is your preferred solution to concurrent programming and it's working for you then there's no real problem, is there? I'm sorry Python doesn't work for you, but fortunately there's a rich toolset available of which Python is only a part. It's fine for many tasks, but it's by no means your only option. Isn't open source wonderful?
If we want to be understood we had better start communicating more effectively. The onus isn't on others to understand us, it's on us to make ourselves understood.
Well, whoop-de-fucking doo. Do you feel better now?
That's not sexism, it's GENDER DISCRIMINATION. And it's intended to counterbalance the years of bullshit that women have gone through because of the knuckle-draggers and others who aren't really concerned about such issues in charge. People who get a limited grasp on an idea and then try to twist the evidence to incorporate their world view, rather than doing joined-up thinking based on, you know, actual evidence.
I have spent years addressing the lack of all types of diversity in the open source world generally (and the Python community specifically) and I applaud efforts to increase female participation in information technology and open source. It is unconscionable that the gender balance in the open source software world is EVEN WORSE than in IT and the hi-tech world generally. But all you can do is bleat on about your nephew being discriminated against. Can't you see the larger good that this discrimination offers?
Did you also think the reverse discrimination applied to allow more black people to partake of opportunities which they had formerly been unconstitutionally denied was racist? I am aware there are some people who do, and they are peddling exactly the same type of bullshit as this.
I should apologize for the ad hominem use of "like you" and "idiot" in the original of the above description. I have apparently successfully edited the post, but intend to leave this apology here in case the original may be archived somewhere.
The truth is I don't know you, and I don't know anything about you, so it was unfair and unnecessary of me to characterize you in that way with a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry. You have stimulated a debate, and I do not wish to belittle your point of view, mistaken though I believe it to be.
Thank you. There's a difference between being psychic and being sensitive to the needs of others. We all make mistakes, but if we apologize if it's required and most of all if we don't continue along an unwelcome vector there should be no need for any invocation of a code of conduct.
As someone else has pointed out, its primary purpose is to reassure those who (reasonably or unreasonably) fear harassment that the issue will be taken seriously if it occurs.