Is 3.0 worth breaking backward compatibility?

Andreas Waldenburger geekmail at usenot.de
Sun Dec 7 20:35:53 CET 2008


On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:22:23 -0800 (PST) walterbyrd
<walterbyrd at iname.com> wrote:

> IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
> done when it is seriously needed.
> 
Pleeeeze. Python 3 is shipping now, and so is 2.x, where x > 5. Python
2 is going to be around for quite some time. What is everybody's
problem? 


> Also, IMO, most of, if not all, of the changes being made in 3.0 are
> debatable, at best. I can not think of anything that is being changed
> that was really a "show stopper" anyway.
> 
Right. But warts accumulate, and some day you'll have a troglodyte
of a language. Better to scrubb off some warts every now and then, so
the whole thing remains agile.


> At best, I am a casual python user, so it's likely that I am missing
> something.
Yes, the big picture.

Also, being a casual Python user (like myself, just to clarify), *you*
will least be bitten by the incombatibilties.


I *really* don't get all the outrage. It's a major new version. What
better time to tighten things up a bit?


/W

-- 
My real email address is constructed by swapping the domain with the
recipient (local part).



More information about the Python-list mailing list