>> Most of the complaints about Py3 are "it's harder to get something >> started (or port from Py2)". My answer is that it's easier to get >> something finished. > > I like all of this logic, it makes sense to me. But Armin and Kenneth have > more experience than I do actually writing networking software. They are > both very smart and very willing to do a ton of work. And both are unhappy. > I don't know how to square that with the logic that makes sense to me. > > And no amount of logic about why Python 3 is better is going to solve the > problem of the two of them being unhappy. They are speaking from experience > working with the actual product.
+1, well-said. I hope you'll see my comments on the thread on the "bytestring type". This issue also goes back to the schism in 2004 from the VPython folks over floating point. Again the ***whole*** issue is ignoring the relationship between your abstractions and your concrete architectural implementations. I honestly think Python3 will have to be regressed despite all the circle jerking about how "everyone's moving to Python 3 now". I see how I was inadequately explaining the whole issue by using high-level concepts like "models of computation", but the comments on the aforementioned thread go right down to the heart of the issue. markj -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
