Python 3

[Ethan Furman]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:27:09 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> 
> 
>>Steven D'Aprano <steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:08:54 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Steven D'Aprano <steven at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>Why would I want to use an already existing library that is fast,
>>>>>well- written and well-supported, when I can toss together a nasty
>>>>>kludge myself?
>>>>
>>>>Because using that library will ensure you can't migrate to Python 3
>>>>any time soon?
>>>
>>>Why would I want to migrate to Python 3 any time soon?
>>
>>Sounds like you've answered the questions posed, then. Good for you!
> 
> 
> I was actually only being *half* tongue in cheek, which is why I left out 
> the smiley.
> 
> On the python-dev list at the moment is a lot of discussion on why uptake 
> of Python 3.1 has been slower than hoped. But one of the things that 
> people haven't really discussed -- or at least that I haven't seen -- is 
> why one would prefer 3.1 over 2.5 or 2.6.
> 
> I've played around with 3.0, and I've read the What's New for 3.1 (and am 
> installing 3.1 now), and while the changes look nice, I'm not sure that 
> they're nice enough to deal with the pain of 2to3 migration.
> 
> So how about that, 3.1 fans? What are the most compelling reasons for you 
> that convinced you to change?

Python 3 is more pythonic.  ;-)

Cleaner, more consistent, etc.

~Ethan~