I strongly dislike Python 3

[geremy condra]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Bokma <john at castleamber.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> Might as well spare yourself the trouble and install linux or *bsd. It's
>>>> probably easier.
>>>
>>> Ah, yeah, and then run all those Windows applications one requires on
>>> Wine...
>>
>> If you're bound to a platform, use it. My advice is just to get bound to
>> a platform that does what you need it to do, and in my experience it's
>> quite a bit easier to teach linux to do what you wanted windows to do
>> than the other way around.
>
> I've used several operating systems over many years and each OS has its
> own issues. I am currently using mostly Linux and it's far from the
> flawless OS some people seem to think it is. While it's true that some
> things are easier on OS A than on OS B changing your operating system
> because one (minor) thing "doesn't work" is often not an option.

Sure, linux has its flaws- but it does include a working shell OOTB, which
is what raised this question in the first place.

> On top of that, I don't think it's that hard to make a small program
> that one associates with .py files which checks the first line and feeds
> the .py to the correct version of Python based on the information in the
> aformentioned first line.

I could spend my time reinventing all kinds of wheels. I'm just not sure
why I'd want to.

> Another option (instead of installing a better shell) might be to make
> several VMs, each with their own Python version. Run subversion (or any
> other version control system) on your host, and you can test whatever
> you want.

Is this seriously your solution? Can you see why I would rather have a
working shell than have to automate test suites across a half dozen
VMs?

> There are plenty of people who are very happy with coding under an MS
> OS. I now and then miss those days :-).

Ok, and for those people things like cygwin exist. My point is just that it
is frequently easier to do an actual linux install.

Geremy Condra