Re: Why Python3

Discussion in 'Python' started by MRAB, Jun 28, 2010.

  1. MRAB

    MRAB Guest

    Stephen Hansen wrote:
    > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
    >> Terry Reedy wrote:
    >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
    >>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
    >>> and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with
    >>> volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that direction.
    >>>

    >> [snip]
    >> It's clear that Guido's time machine is limited in how far it can travel
    >> in time, because if it wasn't then Python 1 would've been more like
    >> Python 3 and the changes would not have been necessary! :)

    >
    > I'm pretty sure he wrote the Time Machine in Python 1.4, or maybe 1.3?
    > Either way, its well established that a time machine can't go back in
    > time any farther then the moment its created.
    >
    > I don't at all remember why, don't even vaguely understand the physics
    > behind it, but Morgan Freeman said it on TV, so its true.
    >

    That's if the time machines uses a wormhole:

    >>> import wormhole


    Unfortunately it's not part of the standard library. :-(

    > So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're
    > stuck with the Py3k break. :)
    >
     
    MRAB, Jun 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MRAB

    eric dexter Guest

    On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB <> wrote:
    > Stephen Hansen wrote:
    > > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
    > >> Terry Reedy wrote:
    > >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
    > >>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
    > >>> and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with
    > >>> volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that direction.

    >
    > >> [snip]
    > >> It's clear that Guido's time machine is limited in how far it can travel
    > >> in time, because if it wasn't then Python 1 would've been more like
    > >> Python 3 and the changes would not have been necessary! :)

    >
    > > I'm pretty sure he wrote the Time Machine in Python 1.4, or maybe 1.3?
    > > Either way, its well established that a time machine can't go back in
    > > time any farther then the moment its created.

    >
    > > I don't at all remember why, don't even vaguely understand the physics
    > > behind it, but Morgan Freeman said it on TV, so its true.

    >
    > That's if the time machines uses a wormhole:
    >
    >  >>> import wormhole
    >
    > Unfortunately it's not part of the standard library. :-(
    >
    > > So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're
    > > stuck with the Py3k break. :)

    >
    >


    planned obselence.. It would be nice if a pause was taken at 3.5 and
    a huge number of libraries were made available for 3.5..
     
    eric dexter, Jun 28, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:51 PM, eric dexter <> wrote:
    > On Jun 27, 7:46 pm, MRAB <> wrote:
    >> Stephen Hansen wrote:
    >> > On 6/27/10 6:09 PM, MRAB wrote:
    >> >> Terry Reedy wrote:
    >> >>> Another would have been to add but never remove anthing, with the
    >> >>> consequence that Python would become increasingly difficult to learn
    >> >>> and the interpreter increasingly difficult to maintain with
    >> >>> volunteers. I think 2.7 is far enough in that direction.

    >>
    >> >> [snip]
    >> >> It's clear that Guido's time machine is limited in how far it can travel
    >> >> in time, because if it wasn't then Python 1 would've been more like
    >> >> Python 3 and the changes would not have been necessary! :)

    >>
    >> > I'm pretty sure he wrote the Time Machine in Python 1.4, or maybe 1.3?
    >> > Either way, its well established that a time machine can't go back in
    >> > time any farther then the moment its created.

    >>
    >> > I don't at all remember why, don't even vaguely understand the physics
    >> > behind it, but Morgan Freeman said it on TV, so its true.

    >>
    >> That's if the time machines uses a wormhole:
    >>
    >>  >>> import wormhole
    >>
    >> Unfortunately it's not part of the standard library. :-(
    >>
    >> > So he couldn't go back and fix 1.0, physics won't allow him. So we're
    >> > stuck with the Py3k break. :)

    >>
    >>

    >
    > planned obselence..  It would be nice if a pause was taken at 3.5 and
    > a huge number of libraries were made available for 3.5..
    > --


    You mean as opposed to a 2-year pause at 3.1 so that a huge number of
    libraries and alternate Python implementations could catch up?
    http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3003/
     
    Benjamin Kaplan, Jun 28, 2010
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    910
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,000
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  3. Terry Reedy

    Why Python3

    Terry Reedy, Jun 28, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    752
    John Yeung
    Jun 30, 2010
  4. Andrew Berg
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    Andrew Berg
    Jun 16, 2012
  5. Stefan Behnel
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    332
    HoneyMonster
    Jun 26, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page