py3k s***s

[Marco Mariani]

Aaron Watters wrote:

> stuff out there you can get so easily -- all the stuff that py3k
> will break -- most of which won't get ported -- and if it does can
> we be sure it will be tested properly?  No, probably you will end
> up beta testing someone's quick port of what used to be rock
> solid code...  This was quite rightly pointed out to me, and
> I had to agree that it was a pretty good point.

Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better 
than Python's?

Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.