py3k s***s

[Steve Holden]

Aaron Watters wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:33 pm, Rhamphoryncus <rha... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The point is, you can't have it both ways.  Either you evolve the
>> language and break things, or you keep it static and nothing breaks.
> 
> I disagree.  You can add lots of cool
> stuff without breaking the existing code base, mostly.
> For example the minor changes to the way ints will work will
> effect almost no programs.
> 
> I don't see the urgency to clean up what are essentially
> cosmetic issues and throw out or
> require rewrites for just about all existing Python
> code. Python 2.6 isn't fundamentally awful like Perl 4 was.
> The cost paid for these minor improvements is too high in my
> book.  But I suppose if it is going to happen do it sooner
> rather than later.  Just *please* *please* don't
> systematically break the pre-existing code base again for a
> very long time, preferable ever.

I'm pretty sure the 3.0 compatibility breakage is a one-shot deal. If 
it's not I won't be the only one looking for Guido with a bog stick in 
my hand ...

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC              http://www.holdenweb.com/