That is both disappointing and a bit depressing. I don't keep up with Python (mostly because my work keeps me in JS or non-Python backends 100% of the time, so far), so I wasn't clear on the reasons why Python 3 is generally looked down upon. I should really look at the debate a bit more closely so I can at least understand where the language is going...
It also isn't true. It's an extraordinary claim that this random person on the Internet has better insight into the proper evolution of Python than its own creator. Of course, they offer no evidence to back up this assertion.
All this is is people who are simply resistant to change. In the Delphi world its corporate maintainer wants to introduce memory management, zero-based immutable strings and other modern developments to both attract new users and make developing for mobile devices easier. People began complaining, and over and over again they claimed that this was going to be done "for no reason at all". This was in spite of a massive white paper being produced that explained why they wanted to make the changes. These same people claimed that Java had these features "for no reason" and it took all of 10 seconds to find a Java white paper also explaining all the reasons these features exist in the language.
It's the same thing with the Python holdouts. "They broke everyone's code - and for bad [unspecified] reasons" is patently untrue. Guido and others painstakingly explained those reasons and the claimant isn't offering any rebuttal.
so I wasn't clear on the reasons why Python 3 is generally looked down upon.
Inertia. People just don't want to have to do anything to port code. No language has ever been as accomodating as Guido has been and they still want Python 2.8, 2.9, 2.999995, etc.
It has to work the other way, however, too. Armin, in particular, has created some farily detailed criticisms of how Python 3 is structurally broken with respect to IO boundaries. They might have been delivered more kindly, as it can be grating to have someone pound on your work over and over in semiblue language. But regardless, the issues do exist, and these aren't things that can be just kinda bugfixed or something; a real solution would require bw incompatible changes and buy-in from lots of people. And if there are folks ignoring the rationales coming from Guido, there are just as many effectively ignoring (or at least minimizing) the rationales coming out of the folks doing the criticisms of Python 3. There are of course good reasons to do this; to make yet another very-bw-incompat release of Python would be very costly, and very might kill the language faster than leaving the structural deficiencies in. But that doesn't mean the issues don't exist, and that such a bw-incompat release might not be the right thing to do.
0
u/[deleted] May 26 '14
[deleted]