On 16 Apr, 15:16, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better > than Python's? > > Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.
So would I, but then it isn't the Ruby developers that are *promising* to break backward compatibility *and* claiming that it's a good thing. This means that those wanting to sell Ruby as a solution can play the political game and claim a better roadmap even if they end up causing more disruption than Python 3.x does: it's like electioneering on a platform of "no new taxes" and then breaking that promise after gaining power. I find myself agreeing strongly with Aaron about this. Lots of things were considered "wrong" with Python over the years, but I'm unconvinced about the remedy: http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonWarts There seems to be a lot of "out with the old" in the Free Software world of late. Another example: KDE 3.x eventually finds itself in products with widespread distribution; the developers bring out a less capable version (but with more "bling") that everyone is now supposedly working on instead; momentum is lost. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
