On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Steve Holden <steve at holdenweb.com> wrote: > And again I say, if anyone knows of any budgets to which this work is > important, the PSF will be happy to try and tap these people for money > that can help the development effort. Frankly I am a little embarrassed > by the poor quality of some library code. > > I think it shows that the "rush to release" which might not have been in > Python's best short-term interests, even though actually getting it out > the door was a significant occurrence for the long term.. I'm not sure we would ever have realised the full implications of the bytes/str split without pushing 3.0 out the door when we did. And it was the early feedback on 3.0 that showed 3.1 really was necessary to deal with the I/O performance issue. I agree the current state of things is not ideal, but I don't think it's a given waiting longer to release 3.x would have actually helped anything (and there is already code out there showing that, so long as you don't need the modules with bytes/unicode issues, Python 3 is very usable). Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan at gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4