4 ms·
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/ http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/ Wow... that was 2006. Everything I've read in the PEP and mailing lists
by agentultra 12y ago
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/ http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3000/
Wow... that was 2006. Everything I've read in the PEP and mailing lists seems to imply that the contributors were doing their best to limit the scope of the backwards-incompatible changes to those parts that were deemed absolutely necessary.
The point wasn't to break backwards compatibility to add new, competitive features. It was to make the incremental improvements to the language while strategically correcting some poor, historical decisions. In other words it wasn't a rewrite or a new language.
That there are still prominent, influential Python programmers who are complaining about the bytes object is a shame. However it's a battle that is slowly coming to an end.
The real problem is that the community has been dragging its feet and many frustrated developers are complaining loudly and publicly about it. It's distorting what Python 3 is.
- cwyers 12y agoWell, whose problem is it? Most people use Python in order to solve problems they have. If Python 2 solves their problems better than Python 3, they'll use Python 2. (And yes, "solves their problems better" includes "lets them continue to use an already-existing solution that works fine.") If the people developing Python want other people to use Python 3, they need to make it better than other ways of accomplishing the tasks they want to complete -- and that includes being better than Python 2. It's not the responsibility of the community to move to Python 3 for the sake of the Python developers.
- pekk 12y agoYou have missed that it is much of the community which wants the Python 3 transition to succeed and which is actively working on helping it succeed.