One study [1] in the US released in 2020 found almost 90% of people admitted to speeding, but I don’t think anyone would say that speeding is now approved by the authorities and consequence-free.
[1] https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/speeding-car-ins...
Depends on the definition of "correct".
One way to define "correct" is "as defined by the standard". However, standard serves a purpose - to maintain interoperability between components, so the other, deeper, way to define "correct" is "interoperable with the ecosystem".
The official standard can argue that relying on the implementation detail is incorrect because they didn't specify it explicitly, but they would go against the grain of the rest of the ecosystem. Which reminds me of an old joke:
An old woman is watching the news. She sees a news report saying there is a car driving in the wrong direction on the highway. So the old woman calls up her husband.
Old woman: be careful on the highway dear, there is a crazy driver on the highway driving the wrong way!
Husband: It’s not just one car, it’s hundreds of them!The "standard" is a combination of PEPs, the Python docs, and the CPython implementation.
Implementation details are language features, because implementation details are the standard. Python programs that rely on the GIL are not "wrong". Such programs are relying on clearly-documented features of the system that they use.
Is it "wrong" to use GCC-specific features in a C program, if you know that you only intend to target GCC?
On the other hand, Linux kernel developers have also been burned by GCC changing what it does regarding undefined behavior (the infamous not-so-corner cases of C/C++). They expect GCC to be sort of like an assembler, which does the most straightforward thing in case of ambiguities. Instead, GCC is an optimizing compiler that is expected to deliver high-performance code for general-purpose programs. It treats undefined behavior as opportunities to enact optimizations. What it actually does is also usually documented, but also here different people have different expectations about what that implies.
The GIL is an implementation choice that was put in place by Python's developers for simplicity's sake. It is important to be aware of it because it has huge performance implications, but it is unwise to rely on it for semantics. Especially since it has not exactly been a secret that various parties would eventually like it to be removed. Anyways, the GIL has very little to do with Python's semantics. User code is racy with or without the GIL, which is actually the point of TA.
The problem here is: Implementation details are not guaranteed to be stable. They can change with every release.
So if I write code that relies on any particular implementation detail, it may be correct today, and may be wrong two weeks from now, even though I didn't change anything.
Hyrum's Law says the opposite:
"With a sufficient number of users of an API, it does not matter what you promise in the contract: all observable behaviors of your system will be depended on by somebody."
Named after some guy called Hyrum who worked / works at Google.
I would say jaywalking in NYC is a much better example because breaking the law doesn't kill others except in rare cases. Jaywalking is illegal. It's also not enforced for all intents and purposes. Every attempt to enforce it has led to such loud public outcry that it was stopped.
Just hard as hell to change