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

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster



On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Simo Sorce <ssorce redhat com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:47 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 12:35 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> >
>> > I just don't get why any sane person, especially anyone familiar with
>> > computer languages, would ever want to give something that is not the
>> > same the same name.  Does anyone know how the developer(s) manage this
>> > themselves?  I have to think they are keeping multiple concurrent
>> > versions installed (and that that is the only reasonable approach).
>>
>> I'm pretty certain that if you look at any language, they've all faced
>> similar scenarios, major version upgrades that may in fact not be
>> forward no backward compatible.  People have dealt with it and moved on.
>> No language is perfect.
>
> Never seen C/C++ break backward compatibility on a scale like Python 3.0
> will.
> And they are compiled, where the impact is 100 fold less than for
> interpreted languages ...
>
> I would personally strongly consider having 2.x and 3.0 parallel
> installable ...


Isn't Python designed to be parallel installable?


-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )


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