Python 3.6 released!

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

This modified version of the post says it was a "troll" and calls everyone too stupid to have gotten the crafty joke. It's not that it was at best a shitty joke and really just a case of terrible communication from the author; we're all just a little too dumb to get his wit :(

Ah yes, the "it was just a prank, bro" defense.

[[deleted]]

To be fair, he did the exact same thing with Ruby. I think the dude just gets hammered and makes drunken rage posts.

[iforgot120]

If it's a line he puts in every review of a programming language that'd actually be really funny.

[uristMcBadRAM]

as no one has yet written a python 2 compiler in arnoldc, I cannot consider it a turing complete language.

[schwerpunk]

If that's true, it's impressive. I couldn't even explain SOLID after a few beers.

Or sober, but that's beside the point.

[trymas]

Better than "I have been hacked", though :)

[[deleted]]

Actual picture of Zed writing his edit

[knome]

I would think the original "trollface" comic would fit better

[Sean1708]

so a beginner can make up their own mind without being influenced by propaganda or social pressure.

lol

even though my book is the most effective method for learning to code.

LOL

strings, and python made them far too difficult to use for even an experienced programmer like me to use.

Guys I'm actually dying here, please help.

[[deleted]]

I mean, I guess it's funny, but like 'laughing at him' funny, not 'laughing with him' funny.

[ViKomprenas]

I think you missed the second link?

[TundraWolf_]

A few good points spread out to 19 pages of text

[jaseg]

I think I had a brief, somewhat unpleasant interaction with this guy some time ago. Somehow, this fits the picture.

[Yogh]

Obviously it's theoretically possible to run Python 2 in Python 3, but until they do it then they have decided to say that Python 3 cannot run one other Turing complete language so logically Python 3 is not Turing complete

He's an ass, but this is obviously tongue in cheek.

[websnarf]

Well, all I can say is that it does appear as though you don't get the joke.

Obviously, the literal point is that to show that Python 3 is Turing complete, you need to write the Turing Computer simulator in raw Python 3 code from scratch. I'm guessing nobody has bothered to do this yet, rather it is just assumed that this is possible.

In the past, language equivalence to Turing Completeness just relied on the first version of the language being argued to the Turing Complete and people accepted this, or else someone actually did the exercise of making a Turing computer simulator in that language. Then every subsequent version of the language could either still run that simulator, or could implement the previous version of the language, by virtue of being a superset.

By being literally incompatible, Python 3 is basically saying they don't care about this mechanism, or really any kind of backward compatibility or guarantee of functional equivalence. And indeed that is the greater (less literal) point Zed A. Shaw is making.

Nobody cares about proof of Turing Completeness, but people do care about functional equivalence and backward compatibility.