Why Python3

[John Yeung]

On Jun 28, 1:58 pm, "OKB (not okblacke)"
<brenNOSPAMb... at NObrenSPAMbarn.net> wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > For the rest of us, you can do a lot with just Python 3.1,
> > with or without C modules. Whether it does *enough* to be
> > considered for deployment depends on what you're deploying
> > it to do. I for one would not hesitate to use Python 3.1
> > as a scripting language, or for any application where the
> > standard library is all you need. You can do a lot with
> > just the standard library.
>
>         The thing is that, for me at least, this isn't
> sufficient, because I often don't know what all I'm going
> to need when I start off.  I may decide to add some new
> feature that requires an extra library, and only then find
> out that I can't, because that library doesn't exist for
> Python 3.  Some things are part of the standard lib, some
> aren't.  I want to be able to start a project and be able
> to find what I need, whether that's part of the standard
> lib or not.

Ah, but what version of Python has a package for everything that you
will need, including the things you haven't thought of?  What happens
when you want to provide a feature that requires a library that
doesn't exist for 2.6?  (Or 2.5 or whatever it is that you feel has
the most complete coverage.)

My point is simply that you have not said anything that goes against
any of Steven's points.

John