<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 02:47, Guido van Rossum <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:guido@python.org">guido@python.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
In the mean time, I don't mind if people learn 3.0 first and 2.6<br>
second. It's probably easier that way than the other way around. :-)</blockquote><div><br>It may be easier in a vacuum -- although I don't think it is. 3.0 is more logical than 2.x, and I don't think it's easier to learn about the better way first, and then realize that you have to use some archaic form later. In fact, we had someone on #python just last week who had learned Python from a 2.6 tutorial, then found out he had to use 2.5, and he was actually tripping over some 2.6-only features he'd been taught. When he learned he had to go back and relearn and fix them by hand, his actual words were "if thats the case, I'm gonna be forced to use another language". I hope that isn't a typical example of such a case, but I can partly understand the sentiment.<br>
<br>But even if it's true, people don't learn in a vacuum. Almost everybody else will be thinking of 3.0 in terms of 'changes since 2.x', tools such as 2to3 are oriented that way, and explanations on bits and pieces of Python available to be googled are by and large about 2.x, not 3.0. Right now, it's just much easier to go from 2.x to 3.0 than the other way 'round.<br>
</div></div><br>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!<br>