Is there no end to Python?

[Jeffrey Schwab]

Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>> No need for flames. I'll content myself with pointing out that most 
>> 1.5.2 programs will run unchanged in 2.5, so the backwards 
>> compatibility picture is very good. Nobody makes you use the new 
>> features!
> 
> They do if you ever want to read their code.  The point of view you've 
> just summarized is what causes languages to become write-only.

Sorry, that came out a lot ruder than I meant it.

I've always heard that Python was extremely easy to learn.  I'm still 
fairly new to the language, though (2.2), and I have not found it any 
easier to learn than Perl or Ruby.  It's great that all these new 
features have been added, but if I want power at the expense of 
intuitive language constructs, I'll stick to C++.