py3k s***s

[Aaron Watters]

On Apr 16, 9:16 am, Marco Mariani <ma... at sferacarta.com> wrote:
>
> Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better
> than Python's?
>
> Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.

I can't comment on that.  Ruby is a lot younger
-- I'd expect it to still be stabilizing a bit.

What I'm saying is that, for example, there are a lot
of cool tools out there for using Python to manipulate
postscript and latex and such.  Most of those tools
require no maintenance, and the authors are not paying
any attention to them, and they aren't interested in
messing with them anymore.

My guess is that there are few
such tools for Ruby.  However, I wouldn't be too
surprised if porting them to Ruby and testing them
properly is not much more difficult than porting them
to py3k and testing them properly...  Especially
since the basic treatment of strings is totally
different in py3k, it seems.

Maybe there is a secret desire in the Python
community to remain a fringe minority underdog
forever?
   -- Aaron Watters
===
http://www.xfeedme.com/nucular/pydistro.py/go?FREETEXT=reap+dead+child