[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster



Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2008-12-05, 14:42 GMT, Michael DeHaan wrote:
I personally haven't tried it yet, but it /aims/ to be incompatble, which is perhaps one of the most glaring signs a language designer has lost it that I've seen.

Guido was preparing on this incompatibility for years, so unless you were sleeping you should not be surprised.

Not being surprised is one thing, but I don't see how anyone could be prepared other than not using any python code.


but it's pretty bad for someone who wants to keep a single codebase across EL 4 (Python 2.3) and up, which I think a lot of us do.

The party line is that you should develop against python 2.6 (which doesn't block you from being compatible with Python 2.3) and then conversion from 2.6 to 3.* would be guaranteed to be done just with a script.

Is there some shortage of names? Why can't a new and incompatible language be given a different name so people don't try to use it with the old and different code?

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]