New Python 3.0 string formatting - really necessary?

[Christian Heimes]

r schrieb:
> I was actually looking forward to 3.0, but the more I hear about 3.0,
> the more I am turned off. I think there are a lot of other
> pythonista's and pythoneers out there who agree but are not saying
> anything. This syntax for string formatting is completely ridiculous.

No, it's very powerful and used in other languages, too.

> What is the purpose of breaking backward compatibility just to write a
> print() function. This is going to push people away from python. 

The purpose of a print() function has been discussed for at least 3
years. You are welcome to read up all dicussions.


> I heard map is going away too, is that true also??, and there was talk at one time(serious talk from
> Guido) about removing lambda functions. Is this planned for the
> future??

Wrong and wrong.
map stays but it has been turned into an iterator. The removal of lambda
has been discussed several years ago but it was repulsed. lambda stays.

> Python has been beautifully designed from the beginning. But, I feel a
> shift from this now. Are they scared of Ruby, if they are, why the
> hell should they be. We do not need to lose any of the great
> pythonista's right now, and we damn sure don't want to turn off the
> new recruits.

Python 3.0 is even more beautiful and more Pythonic. Backward
compatibility was broken for the sake of the language.

> It seems like most of the backward breaks are really just for dumb
> reasons(sorry but its true). What is the logic behind this? The whole
> reason for not having a print function was the need to use it so much
> in debugging. And I was actually going to overlook that until I saw
> this perl/ruby like format method. WTF!

Your truth turns to be a totally different truth than mine -- and most
of the active member of the community.

Christian