[Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X

Fri Jun 18 20:52:45 CEST 2010

I wasn't calling Python 3 a turd. I was trying to show
the strangeness of the logic behind your rationalization.
And failing badly... (maybe I should have used "tar ball"?)
What I'm suggesting is that extreme caution be exercised from
this point forward with all things 3.X-related. Whether you 
wish to accept this or not, 3.X has a negative image to many.
This suggestion specifically includes not abandoning current 
3.X email package users as a case in point. Ripping the rug 
out from new 3.X users after they took the time to port seems
like it may be just enough to tip the scales altogether.
--Mark Lutz (http://learning-python.com, http://rmi.net/~lutz)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk>
> To: lutz at rmi.net
> Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] email package status in 3.X
> Date: 2010年6月18日 18:27:46 +0100
>> On 18/06/2010 18:22, lutz at rmi.net wrote:
> >> Python 3.0 was *declared* to be an experimental release, and by most
> >> standards 3.1 (in terms of the core language and functionality) was a
> >> solid release.
> >>
> >> Any reasonable expectation about Python 3 adoption predicted that it
> >> would take years, and would include going through a phase of difficulty
> >> and disappointment...
> >> 
> > Declaring something to be a turd doesn't change the fact that
> > it's a turd.
>> Right - but *you're* the one calling it a turd, which is not a helpful 
> approach or likely to achieve *anything* useful. I still have no idea 
> what you are actually suggesting.
>> > I have a feeling that most people outside this
> > list would have much rather avoided the difficulty and
> > disappointment altogether.
> >
> > Let's be honest here; 3.X was released to the community in part
> > as an extended beta.
>> Correction - 3.0 was an experimental release. That is not true of 3.1 
> and future releases.
>> All the best,
>> Michael
> > That's not a problem, unless you drop the
> > word "beta". And if you're still not buying that, imagine the sort
> > of response you'd get if you tried to sell software that billed
> > itself as "experimental", and promised a phase of "disappointment".
> > Why would you expect the Python world to react any differently?
> >
> > 
> >> Whilst I agree that there are plenty of issues to workon, and I don't
> >> underestimate the difficulty of some of them, I think "half-baked" is
> >> very much overblown. Whilst you have a lot to say about how much of a
> >> problem this is I don't understand what you are suggesting be *done*?
> >> 
> > I agree that 3.X isn't all bad, and I very much hope it succeeds. And
> > no, I have no answers; I'm just reporting the perception from downwind.
> >
> > So here it is: The prevailing view is that 3.X developers hoisted things
> > on users that they did not fully work through themselves. Unicode is
> > prime among these: for all the talk here about how 2.X was broken in
> > this regard, the implications of the 3.X string solution remain to be
> > fully resolved in the 3.X standard library to this day. What is a
> > common Python user to make of that?
> >
> > --Mark Lutz (http://learning-python.com, http://rmi.net/~lutz)
> >
> >
> > 
>>> -- 
> http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
> http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog
>> READ CAREFULLY. By accepting and reading this email you agree, on behalf of 
> your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from 
> any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap,
> clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and 
> acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with 
> your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, 
> without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent 
> that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf 
> of your employer.
>>>