On Jul 3, 9:09�pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 3, 7:51 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jul 3, 6:24 pm, George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Taking into account 2.6 too (we're not talking about only 3.0 here), > > > probably not much less than those who even know what is gmpy, let > > > alone dismiss a beta Python release because their obscure pet module > > > is not available yet. > > > That was just an example. When you consider ALL the pet > > modules like PIL, Numpy, Win32, etc., that's a lot, isn't it. > > A few points: > - The OP acknowledged he's a newbie, and as a newbie he'll probably > spend some time getting used to the language and the standard library > before jumping to the dozens 3rd party packages. > - I am sure many Python users are productive without ever touching an > external package; that is after all the point of "batteries included". > - Even if they do have external dependencies, chances are that they > are pure Python modules, which typically work without modification on > new 2.x versions.
Yes, these points are valid, although I think mine are valid also. But there's no point in any further arguing. > > > I was just trying to be helpful (I admit I often sound > > negative when I'm not trying to be). > > Well, something like "Until then, such solutions are worthless, i.e., > of no value" is too strong, subjective and biased to be really > helpful. I was trying NOT to imply "broken" or "doesn't do anything useful". I guess I'll have to try to be less succinct. > > George -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
