Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

[Mario Figueiredo]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:26:58 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:

>
>> 
>> Can you give an example?  I wouldn't count things like gets, which
>> aren't as much changes in the language, as recognition that using it was
>> buggy from the start.
>
>That's exactly the point. `gets` is dangerous and needs to die with extreme
>prejudice, and is an extremely strong argument in favour of breaking
>backwards compatibility.

Why? You don't know how to use gets without running into a buffer
overflow?

This is the kind of reasoning I don't understand, really. Creating
programming languages that are afraid of their programmers is why we
have been creating ever more weak and limited programming languages,
and why we have been breeding ever more weak and limited programmers.

Getting all worked up because a programming language offers a way for
you to shoot yourself in the foot seems to be the thing of the day.
Program X introduced a vulnerability, blame it on gets() not the
programmer. I'd rather see that programmer die, than gets() but that's
me, I guess...

gets() dying justifies nothing. There's no argument for it. Trying to
make c look more safe because you dicthed gets, is some sort of a very
bad joke. You might as well get rid of alloc and pretty much the whole
standard language, really. And yet, there goes backwards compatibility
down the toilet because programmers aren't men enough to so much as
look at gets() in the documentation without falling into a crying fit
and loosing it in front of the girls.

Don't use it. But let the damn thing stay. For pete's sake, is this
really what we are coming into? Even C?

Notice: Intelligent programmers not needed anymore. Programming is for
dumb people and justin bieber programming languages.