Why Python3

[eric dexter]

On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB <pyt... at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> Stephen Hansen wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's if the time machines uses a wormhole:
>
>  >>> import wormhole
>
> Unfortunately it's not part of the standard library. :-(
>
> > So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're
> > stuck with the Py3k break. :)
>
>

planned obselence..  It would be nice if a pause was taken at 3.5 and
a huge number of libraries were made available for 3.5..