The real problem with Python 3 - no business case for conversion (was "I strongly dislike Python 3")

[Brendan Abel]

On Jul 7, 3:00 pm, MRAB <pyt... at mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:
> Brendan Abel wrote:
> >>>> One thing that would be very useful is how to maintain something that
> >>>> works on 2.x and 3.x, but not limiting yourself to 2.6. Giving up
> >>>> versions below 2.6 is out of the question for most projects with a
> >>>> significant userbase IMHO. As such, the idea of running the python 3
> >>>> warnings is not so useful IMHO - unless it could be made to work
> >>>> better for python 2.x < 2.6, but I am not sure the idea even makes
> >>>> sense.
>
> > The entire fact that 3.x was *designed* to be incompatible should tell
> > you that supporting 2.x and 3.x with a single code base is a bad idea,
> > except for the very smallest of projects.  This is the point where a
> > project should fork and provide two different versions.
>
> I wouldn't say that 3.x was designed to be incompatible. It was designed
> to tidy the language, and the incompatibilities are an unfortunate
> result.

You're missing the point, and arguing semantics.  It's a good thing I
didn't misspell anything.

Python 3.x will continue to change.  The incompatibilities between 3.x
and 2.x will only become more numerous.  If your goal is to support
2.x, and 3.x, you'd be best supporting them separately.