myths about python 3

[Carl Banks]

On Jan 27, 12:56 pm, John Nagle <na... at animats.com> wrote:
> Arguably, Python 3 has been rejected by the market.

No it's not fathomably arguable, because there's no reasonable way
that Python 3 could have fully replaced Python 2 so quickly.

At best, you could reasonably argue there hasn't been enough time to
tell.


> Instead, there's
> now Python 2.6, Python 2.7, and Python 2.8.

It was always the plan to continue developing Python 2.x alongside
Python 3.x during the transition period.

Last I heard, don't remember where, the plan was for Python 2.7 to be
the last version in the Python 2 line.  If that's true, Python 3
acceptance is further along at this point than anticipated, since they
originally thought they might have to go up to 2.9.


> Python 3 has turned into
> a debacle like Perl 6, now 10 years old.

Perl 6 has never been released.  The situations aren't even
comparable.


> That's the reality, Python 3 fanboys.

You're the fanboy, fanboi.  You are so hellbent on badmouthing Python
3 that you throw three ridiculous, straw-grasping arguments at us.

Here's the real reality.

Python 3 is going to replace Python 2, and it has nothing to do with
technical merit.  The developers are planning to stop development on
2.x line, and only continue with 3.x, so anyone who wants to stay
current--which is most people--with Python will have to use 3.x.
There is no hope that developers will be pressured by the market to
change their plans; we would have seen enough of a backlash by now.
There is also no hope someone will fork Python 2.x and continue it in
perpetuity.  Well, someone might try to fork it, but they won't be
able to call it Python.  No, don't be silly, a fork of Python not
called Python won't gain market share.

So rail if it makes you feel better but you've already lost.


Carl Banks