> Yes, my argument is absolutely that none of the changes warranted breaking backwards compatibility. > That's merely an ad hominem, not an argument as to why

> Yes, my argument is absolutely that none of the changes warranted breaking backwards compatibility. > That's merely an ad hominem, not an argument as to why you believe that the changes merited breaking backwards compatibility when there were far less intrusive ways to realize solutions that were close to as convenient but did not break backwards compatibility. You haven't made an argument, nor given any alternatives. You've just complained that the free work of others wasn't to your specifications. How would you propose handling the str/bytes situation without breaking backwards compatibility?