I saw this post yesterday, and again today it came up. The last comment from the author is this:
Bob â€” Iâ€™ve come to the exact same conclusion. Python 3.0 sounds like itâ€™s great for the Python implementors themselves, and for the language lawyers. It should have been labeled a â€œTechnology Previewâ€: something to take a look at as an indication of future directions, and for people who maintain libraries to work on compatibility with.
Itâ€™s weird how most of the people commenting donâ€™t seem to get that there are factors other than academic ones involved. There is a marketplace for languages, and those that do less well at attracting developers tend to dwindle. Look at LISP â€” very much ahead of its time, but in focusing so much on the purity of the language, and refusing to make compromises that would make its syntax more approachable or readable, they doomed it to be marginalized.
Python 3 is actually probably going to tip me more toward Ruby for future development. Ruby has its issues, but at least itâ€™s not forked, so I wonâ€™t have to throw out any books, and once the minor 1.9 compatibility roadbump is past I wonâ€™t have to worry about which library is compatible with which flavor of the language.
It wouldn't be bad if others with more time would respond to this. As it is, I've read so many negative things about py3 and multiprocessing in the last few days I've burned out my ability to be reasonable.
It's on hacker news too.
Here's a positive post :)
Oh man, I <3 james bennett - see his response/post here