Why Python3

[MRAB]

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. :)
>