On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote: > Any "turdiness" (which I am *not* arguing for) is a natural consequence > of the kinds of backward incompatibilities which were *not* ruled out > for Python 3, along with the (early, now waning) "build it and they will > come" optimism about adoption rates.
FWIW, my optimisim is *not* waning. I think it's good that we're having this discussion and I expect something useful will come out of it; I also expect in general that the (admittedly serious) problem of having to port all dependencies will be solved in the next few years. Not by magic, but because many people are taking small steps in the right direction, and there will be light eventually. In the mean time I don't blame anyone for sticking with 2.x or being too busy to help port stuff to 3.x. Python 3 has been a long time in the making -- it will be a bit longer still, which was expected. -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
