Guido van Rossum wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Tres Seaver <tseaver@palladion.com> wrote:
Any "turdiness" (which I am *not* arguing for) is a natural consequence of the kinds of backward incompatibilities which were *not* ruled out for Python 3, along with the (early, now waning) "build it and they will come" optimism about adoption rates.
FWIW, my optimisim is *not* waning. I think it's good that we're having this discussion and I expect something useful will come out of it; I also expect in general that the (admittedly serious) problem of having to port all dependencies will be solved in the next few years. Not by magic, but because many people are taking small steps in the right direction, and there will be light eventually. In the mean time I don't blame anyone for sticking with 2.x or being too busy to help port stuff to 3.x. Python 3 has been a long time in the making -- it will be a bit longer still, which was expected.
+1 The important thing is to avoid bigotry and FUD, and deal with things the way they are. The #python IRC team have just helped us make a major step forward. This won't be a campaign with a victorious charge over some imaginary finish line. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 See Python Video! http://python.mirocommunity.org/ Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/ UPCOMING EVENTS: http://holdenweb.eventbrite.com/ "All I want for my birthday is another birthday" - Ian Dury, 1942-2000