I have Ruby and Perl tattoos and now work at a Python (2.7) shop, so I have all of the horses in this race, but is there a significant difference between a language that's vaporware[1] and one that nobody uses?
The previous things I've seen also indicated that Python 3 _isn't_ widely supported, though I guess Django finally got support recently, and that it _wasn't_ faster than 2.7. Is this just old information on my part, or is it different for certain kinds of workloads?
> it's not the default in Debian/Ubuntu.
Yeah, that should have a large impact, for sure.
1: I have seen lots of "check out this Perl 6 code" blog posts, but I don't know to what degree it's ACTUALLY vaporware.
> but is there a significant difference between a language that's vaporware[1] and one that nobody uses?
There's a significant difference between a language for which a complete implementation does not exist such that you cannot use it, and one for which an implementation exists but few people currently choose to use it because there is a closely-related predecessor language that still has a stronger ecosystem.
As an stage in the development of a language out of an existing, widely-used predecessor, the "vaporware" stage tends to precede the "available but not popular due to predecessors ecosystem advantage" stage, which tends to precede the "displaces predecessor" stage.
Its obviously possible for a language to stop progressing at any of the earlier stages before reaching the last stage.
The previous things I've seen also indicated that Python 3 _isn't_ widely supported, though I guess Django finally got support recently, and that it _wasn't_ faster than 2.7. Is this just old information on my part, or is it different for certain kinds of workloads?
> it's not the default in Debian/Ubuntu.
Yeah, that should have a large impact, for sure.
1: I have seen lots of "check out this Perl 6 code" blog posts, but I don't know to what degree it's ACTUALLY vaporware.