The real problem with Python 3 - no business case for conversion
in [Python]
|
Prev: IMAP Problems
Next: The real problem with Python 3 - no business case forconversion (was "I strongly dislike Python 3")
From: Martin v. Loewis on 8 Jul 2010 01:01 > The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities > between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time. I think this is unfounded, and actually false. Instead, the incompatibilities will *decrease* over the next few years. Suppose you support 2.x and 3.x from a single code base. Today, you might support 2.3 up to 3.1. In a year, you might drop 2.3, and start support 3.2. That will lead to a reduction of incompatibilities: you can start using 2.4 features, and drop work-arounds for 2.3 limitations. Likewise when you then, later, drop 2.4. As a specific example, since 2.5, the modules in the email package are in lower case, in compliance with PEP 8. 2.x has backwards compatibility so that you can continue to use the uppercase module names, which you need for 2.3/2.4 compat. In 3.x, you can't use these spelling anymore, so your code might use try/except as a work-around. When you drop 2.4, you can drop the work-around. > If you now have a code base that is relatively easy to maintain for both > Python 2.x and 3.x, that is a result of much back-porting efforts and of > a new-feature moratorium that is currently in effect. Enjoy that > situation as you may, because it is guaranteed not to last. On the contrary: it's getting better. The back-porting efforts only become available in 2.6, and you would have to support at least 2.5 today (at least, that's how many maintainers feel). Only when you can drop 2.5 support, you can actually start *using* these backport features, allowing you to make the 2.x and 3.x code more similar. Eventually, the difference will get larger again. Hopefully, by that time, 2.7 got out of use. Regards, Martin
From: Ben Finney on 8 Jul 2010 03:43
"Martin v. Loewis" <martin(a)v.loewis.de> writes: > > The point, one more time with feeling, is that the incompatibilities > > between 2.x and 3.x will *increase* over time. > > I think this is unfounded, and actually false. Since many other people have responded with similar sentiments, I can only think I must have been expressing myself very poorly today. I agree with everything you say here, but it doesn't go against what I've been saying. If I cared about the issue more, I might have another crack at putting my meaning into words; but those who want to support a broad stride of Python versions are more motivated than I to figure it out, so instead I depart the field. -- \ “People's Front To Reunite Gondwanaland: Stop the Laurasian | `\ Separatist Movement!” —wiredog, http://kuro5hin.org/ | _o__) | Ben Finney |