Why Python3

[Stephen Hansen]

On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
>> and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with
>> volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that direction.
>>
> [snip]
> It's clear that Guido's time machine is limited in how far it can travel
> in time, because if it wasn't then Python 1 would've been more like
> Python 3 and the changes would not have been necessary! :-)

I'm pretty sure he wrote the Time Machine in Python 1.4, or maybe 1.3? 
Either way, its well established that a time machine can't go back in 
time any farther then the moment its created.

I don't at all remember why, don't even vaguely understand the physics 
behind it, but Morgan Freeman said it on TV, so its true.

So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're 
stuck with the Py3k break. :)

-- 

    ... Stephen Hansen
    ... Also: Ixokai
    ... Mail: me+list/python (AT) ixokai (DOT) io
    ... Blog: http://meh.ixokai.io/