Why Python3

[Benjamin Kaplan]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:51 PM, eric dexter <irc.dexter at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB <pyt... at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
>> Stephen Hansen wrote:
>> > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
>> >> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
>> >>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
>> >>> and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with
>> >>> volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that direction.
>>
>> >> [snip]
>> >> It's clear that Guido's time machine is limited in how far it can travel
>> >> in time, because if it wasn't then Python 1 would've been more like
>> >> Python 3 and the changes would not have been necessary! :-)
>>
>> > I'm pretty sure he wrote the Time Machine in Python 1.4, or maybe 1.3?
>> > Either way, its well established that a time machine can't go back in
>> > time any farther then the moment its created.
>>
>> > I don't at all remember why, don't even vaguely understand the physics
>> > behind it, but Morgan Freeman said it on TV, so its true.
>>
>> That's if the time machines uses a wormhole:
>>
>>  >>> import wormhole
>>
>> Unfortunately it's not part of the standard library. :-(
>>
>> > So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're
>> > stuck with the Py3k break. :)
>>
>>
>
> planned obselence..  It would be nice if a pause was taken at 3.5 and
> a huge number of libraries were made available for 3.5..
> --

You mean as opposed to a 2-year pause at 3.1 so that a huge number of
libraries and alternate Python implementations could catch up?
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/