On 2014-07-14 23:12, Rick Johnson wrote:
On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:15:45 PM UTC-5, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:58 AM, Larry Martell wrote:
No company that I work for is using python 3 - they just have too
much of an investment in a python 2 code base to switch. I'm just
saying.
And that's not a problem. Every whinging blog author seems to
forget [...] Or maybe the complaint is that there are fancy new
features in Python 3.x that aren't in 2.7? Oh wait, that directly
contradicts the whine. So if Python 3 has added nothing, what's the
rush to move onto it?
What's wrong with people wanting new features WITHOUT suffering
through the headaches of porting code? I think your missing the point
Chris.
You and i both know that most of the features could be added without
breaking Python, but the choice was made to break Python anyway, and
that would have been fine IF the powers that be would have REALLY
made Python better, but they only "slightly" improved the language!
Look, along the course of ANY learning curve, a designer, or an
artist, or an engineer, is going to realize he made some catastrophic
mistakes -- okay, no problem, we are ALL but human after all, even
the "Anointed One" is not beyond mistakes, HOWEVER, the choice to
fracture a community over "minor improvements" was a poor choice and
i think some "owning up" is in order!
Also, this "idea" of yours that people should just shut up and do
what the "regime" commands, is just utter nonsense. Python is a
public offering, and as such is equally subject to both praise and
ridicule.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A REAL BEECH!
If the "powers that be" cannot handle the heat, then they should
withdraw Python from the public and then they can decree any
ridiculous fascist rules they please, until then, what's that old
adage about "reaping" and "sewing"...?
Why it should "they" withdraw it (whatever that means)?
"They" are entitled to keep it public if they want to.
Those who aren't interested are not obliged to take any notice of it,
and any group or individual who wants to develop Python 2 further can
just fork Python 2.7 and continue from there.
QUESTION: "What's worse than fracturing a community?"
ANSWER: "Creating a leadership vacuum."
--And nature *abhors* a vacuum!
Besides, "opposing and competing forces" are a fundamental part of
evolution (psst: do you remember that little thing called "evolution"
Chris?) and so we must NEVER forget the absolute necessity of
dissent! Just think of what our world would be like if every idea was
NOT placed under the microscope for scrutiny.
Evolution is also about competition, and there's nothing stopping
someone creating a fork of Python 2 to compete with Python 3.
I SHUTTER TO THINK!
[snip]
BTW, that's "SHUDDER", not "SHUTTER".
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
