On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:30:17 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote: > Antoine Pitrou writes: > > > I think it's an unfortunate analogy. > > Propose a better one, then. I'm definitely not wedded to the ones > I've proposed! I'm not sure why you want an analogy. Python 3 improves the language and drops legacy cruft. Bringing C++ makes the description unnecessarily contentious and loaded (because C++ has a rather bad reputation amongst many people; recently Linus Torvalds explained again why he thought C was much more appropriate a programming language). And it's not even warranted, because the situation is vastly different. > What do you suggest? Or do you think there's no PR problem we should > worry about, just accept that this going to be a further drag on > adoption and improvement, and keep on keeping on? I suppose the PR problem could be solved by having an official page on python.org explain what the new features and advantages of Python 3 over Python 2 are. There's no such thing right now; actually, I'm not sure there's a Web page explaining clearly what the difference is about, why it was done in such a compatibility-breaking way, and what we advise (both actual and potential) users to do. I suppose that's a task for the "Web content editor community". Regards Antoine.
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