If you read my comment more closely , I ' m not talking about your farm , I ' m talking about your team ' s farm . You lost your previous series , resulting in a free 10 <| sep |> You are completely right , I have no idea what I was talking about there I was very tired when writing that . <| sep |> Ok , I ' m about to be downvoted to oblivion . I ' m going to say it anyway It is very difficult to fix problems that are erroneously viewed as positive social goods . This fellow is pointing out some problems that happen to strike a chord with me . The statement that in Python 3 , all strings are unicode strings is blatently false , and as the fellow says , Python 3 has implemented static types for strings rather than Python 2 ' s dynamic strings , leading to all sorts of pain . Real world pain , as evidenced by his simple addstring and catstring functions . He uses the phrase not Turing complete to describe the problem of Python 3 VM not being able to run Python 2 code . This , honoured readers , is a red herring which manages to detract from the real issue . Really , the guts of his point is that the Python 3 VM emshouldem be able to run Python 2 code . I agree with him . Think about all the distress which could have been avoided if those Python 2 libraries just kept on working ! Adoption of Python 3 would have been 100 % by now . Oh ! , I hear you say , but that is impossible ! Python 3 is too different it could never run Python 2 code ! . Then the author ' s other point is equally valid if Python 3 is not capable , then either the language sucks , or the developers of Python do . Ok , downvoters , do your worst !