py3k s***s

[Aaron Watters]

On Apr 15, 12:30 am, Sverker Nilsson <s... at sncs.se> wrote:
> No one forces me, but sooner or later they will want a Python 3.0 and
> then a 3.1 whatever.
>
> I don't want that fuzz. As about the C versions, I am not that
> worried. What's your point?
>
> I just like want to write a program that will stay working.

Maybe I'll see the wisdom of py 3k eventually, if I don't die first,
but I have to agree with Sverker's general comments.  Just yesterday
I had a conversation with someone who thinks maybe Ruby is better
than Python -- the one really good argument Python
has against nearly all contenders is all the
stuff out there you can get so easily -- all the stuff that py3k
will break -- most of which won't get ported -- and if it does can
we be sure it will be tested properly?  No, probably you will end
up beta testing someone's quick port of what used to be rock
solid code...  This was quite rightly pointed out to me, and
I had to agree that it was a pretty good point.

In my opinion python's adherence to backwards compatibility
has been a bit mythological anyway -- many new python versions
have broken my old code for no good reason.  This is an irritant
when you have thousands of users out there who suddenly drop
your code, blame you and python, and move on to use something else.
Honestly, how hard would it have been to provide standard backwards
support for the old regex module as a standard module which simply
translated one regex string format to another, for example?

I don't get it.  It ain't broke.  Don't fix it.

At long last Python has a full head of steam and py3k
is just confusing everyone.

But I've been wrong before (twice).  I also once thought generators
were a mistake :) (but I still think full stackless would be
much better, which python seems to be very slowly moving
towards.....)
   -- Aaron Watters

===
http://www.xfeedme.com/nucular/pydistro.py/go?FREETEXT=nonsense