
Let's talk about Python 3.0 - mqt
http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2008/dec/05/python-3000/
======
tdavis
Amen. It's going to be a huge pain the ass to convert stuff, but worth it for
a much needed language "cleansing."

~~~
tptacek
Because as we all know, "clean" code outsells "working" code every time.

~~~
ubernostrum
Why not have both?

~~~
tptacek
Because you don't have a time machine, and you do have features to build.

~~~
jodrellblank
But if nobody ever cleans up, you end up with a horrible place to be.

~~~
tptacek
I don't think this article has aged well:

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>

because it chose a really bad example. But the points it makes are where I'm
coming from too. "Cleanliness" is highly overrated.

~~~
kragen
Joel's article is about scrapping your existing codebase and starting from
scratch. The discussion here is about a new version of the Python interpreter
which was made from the old one by means of a bunch of incremental changes,
and which will require a bunch of incremental changes in old Python code to
run the old code. How is Joel's article relevant here?

~~~
tptacek
Because the argument here is that it's worth breaking code to make it
"cleaner", and Joel's argument is about why "clean" code is overrated. I agree
that it's not a perfect match for the discussion, but it is relevant.

~~~
jimbokun
"Well, yes. They did. They did it by making the single worst strategic mistake
that any software company can make:

They decided to rewrite the code from scratch."

"You may want to refactor a class to make it easier to use. That's fine, too.
But throwing away the whole program is a dangerous folly..."

Joel is talking about rewrites, not refactorings. Py3k is more like a
refactoring. You can still argue that it is ill considered, but it is not the
same as what Joel is referring to.

(I suppose, technically, it is a forced refactoring for anyone who wants to
use Py3k with their existing code. But still very different than a complete
rewrite from scratch.)

~~~
tptacek
I see where you're coming from; this discussion just reminded me of the value
Spolsky seemed to put on sweeping up ugly old code in that article.

------
shadytrees
There's a flaw in the analogy: Very few of the original monkeys have been
removed from the Python community. What Python programmers think are annoying
has always simultaneously bugged the hell out of the people working on the
language.

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
I think the author was targetting the analogy at the people who are
complaining about the changes: they don't want things to break, even if it
means a subpar implementation, because _that's the way it has always been_.

------
epall
I've been meaning to learn Python for a while, and this seems like a good
chance to jump in. Are there any books out on Python 3.0 yet?

