On 08:51 pm, guido at python.org wrote: >On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM, <glyph at divmod.com> wrote: >>I also don't think 3.0 is perfect, and five years on, there will be a >>temptation to make more "just this once" incompatible changes. Of >>course, >>you've promised these changes won't be made, and *this* set of design >>mistakes will be with us forever. It would be nice if there were a >>way for >>evolution to continue without another reboot of the world. >Since one of your favorite themes is that your team is too small, I >would like to reuse that idea. If we had as many Python core >developers as Sun and IBM have working on Java, we could most likely >have introduced all Python 3.0 features gradually, with compiler flags >and __future__ imports to support different versions. But despite >being a bit bigger than Twisted, we're still severely constrained by >resources. Ah, the dangers of over-editing. I originally had a whole paragraph about how I understood that the Python dev team was also resource constrained, but I deleted it for brevity. Now you see why my posts are so long! :)
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