myths about python 3

[Martin v. Loewis]

> Why do I feel like there's less of an onus on Unladen Swallow to
> _actually prove itself in substantial real world usage_ before
> integration into CPython than there is on even the smallest of modules
> for inclusion in the standard library?

Because it's a VM change, not an end-user change. VM changes can be
reviewed and evaluated by core developers, without requiring necessarily
feedback from end users (although end users can and do certainly
evaluate VM changes themselves also and provide feedback).

For library changes, it's more difficult to evaluate them, because
you not only need to find out whether the change is correct, but also
whether it is useful.

> Are we really expected to just ditch everything we know about
> CPython's performance characteristics just for some questionable and
> possibly uneven gains?

That's the point of writing a PEP. Provide feedback to the PEP authors,
and ask them to incorporate your objections into the PEP in case they
forget. Then, when the PEP is about to be approved, that feedback
gets taken into consideration.

Posting in the 665th message on a Usenet thread is unlikely to have any
effect on the PEP process, though.

> I've been a big supporter of Py3 from the beginning, but this repeated
> claim of US becoming the mainline interpreter for 3.x pretty much
> kills dead a lot of my interest.

It's not a claim, it's a PEP. Not being interested in the PEP process
is your choice, of course, but you shouldn't complain afterwards that
your opinion wasn't considered if you didn't actually voice it
appropriately.

Regards,
Martin