Python 3 is killing Python

[Rick Johnson]

On Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:31:31 AM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
> [...] That said, though, I would advise you to give 2to3 a
> shot. You never know, it might do exactly what you need
> right out-of-the-box and give you a 3.x-compatible
> codebase in one hit.

Ha! 

Are you so foolish as to believe that if code runs cleanly
*immediately* after translating via "2to3", that the code is
now completely free from translation bugs?

You act as if 2to3 is some "magical" code that can root out
every bug no matter how subtle. No, for those of us who care
about our reputation, we are not about to release code that
could blow chunks and leave egg all over our face, or worse,
cause us to loose a contract!

> Ultimately, the solution is simply to keep Python 2.7
> around for a good long time, until the carrot of new Py3
> features becomes attractive enough for it to be worth
> switching. And if that's not before 2020, no problem. Even
> if it's after 2020, there's a fair chance that you'll
> still be able to run your 2.7 code -

So in other words, "we're" know now we made a bad decision by
creating this Python3000 thing, because nobody seems to be
jumping on the bandwagon, but instead of admitting we were
wrong, we'll just cling to our new shiny *THING* and hope
*EVENTUALLY*, if we brow-beat *ENOUGH* people, that well,
*MAYBE* most of them will embrace this *ABORTION* and join us.

> it's just that there's no promise (at the moment) of
> patches, even security patches, from python.org. 

Oh yes, i see... when brow-beating does not work, we adopt
the malevolent tactics of $MS  and $OS by allowing security
holes and virus infections to riddle the code base obsolete.

    COME AND GET THE NEXT NEW SHINY RATTLE YOU INFANTS!

    MEET THE NEW RATTLE...
    SAME AS THE OLD RATTLE...

i pray we don't get fooled again!