On 05/24/2014 09:03 AM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 2:59 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>>
Instead of focusing on bringing legacy libraries to Python3 (for which
there never seems to be a critical need), Python3 needs a brand new
killer module/application/library that is only available on Python3.


Yikes! Backwards incompatibility is a poor excuse for NIH syndrome.

Don't reinvent the wheel, please. If there's an existing
implementation of a thing, that can save you a lot of work. Even if it
ties you to Python 2, that's worth it, most of the time. If you want
to migrate to Python 3, help that library forward, rather than trying
to make some bespoke replacement you think will be a killer app.

+1

--
~Ethan~

--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Reply via email to