5 ms·

Has there actually been a statement that python 4 will be backwards compatible to python 3?

by ctz 11y ago

rudolf0 11y ago
Formally, no, but Guido expressed regret that Python 3 broke backwards compatibility, and made intentions of trying to minimize backwards incompatibility for Python 4.
untothebreach 11y ago
I don't have any links but I know there have been statements by core devs that, when/if there is another major version of python being developed, there will be an upgrade path to make the 3->4 transition much better than the 2->3 transition.
- daveguy 11y ago
  Yeah, they pretty much botched the 2->3 transition. I would love to see a 4 that included a viable 2->4 transition with semantic versioning until then. But Guido&Co are going to do whatever the hell they feel like doing, community be damned. Py2.7 will be forked and going strong long after 2020. Actually 2020 will probably be a Python renaissance when the cruft, incompatibilities, gil, no jit, etc can finally be addressed without the Guido mafia. 2.8 will be what 3 should have been, using deprecation for dated syntax and gradual introduction of new features. Python is open source. There will be a 2.8 regardless of whether Guido is involved.
  - vegabook 11y ago
    > community be damned couldn't agree more. Yet all the evidence is that they're still using 3.x as their personal little hobby playground. Exhibit A: type annotations. Just because others are doing it. Nobody is asking for this. Even the PEP took ages to approve because even the yes-men had their doubts. Exhibit B: re-invent green threads. There are 15 solutions already. Where is GPU? Where is multicore? Where is speed? Where is the leadership?
gh02t 11y ago
I believe they said they were going to try very hard to not do major backwards compatible breaking changes again. > My current expectation is that Python 4.0 will merely be "the release that comes after Python 3.9". That's it. No profound changes to the language, no major backwards compatibility breaks - going from Python 3.9 to 4.0 should be as uneventful as going from Python 3.3 to 3.4 (or from 2.6 to 2.7). I even expect the stable Application Binary Interface (as first defined in PEP 384) to be preserved across the boundary. http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.h... (which was linked by Guido from his Twitter).
- kazagistar 11y ago
  ... thats stupid. Semver isn't that complicated, and everyone understands what 3.10 means.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    Semver isn't all that OLD; it came out in 2009, I think? (The SemVer site very helpfully doesn't have any dates on it.) Python, meanwhile, came out in 1991. Not having precognition made it difficult for Python to adopt SemVer, and now that they have versioning practices in place there needs to be more than "I like SemVer" as a compelling argument for them to change. Especially since there are reasonable people who have reasonable disagreements with how SemVer works.
    - mikestew 11y ago
      I have nothing to back this up other than my increasingly unreliable memory, but the semantics of SemVer goes back further than 2009. Maybe it wasn't formally written out, but as far back as the 90s that XX.YY.zz could be translated as XX == major changes, breaking changes for APIs, reworked UI for end-user apps. YY == some new functionality, no breaking/major changes. zz == bug fixes. It probably goes back further than that, and it was probably one of those "everybody knows..." kind of things, but it definitely didn't start to be a widely-known definition a measly seven years ago.
mrmb 11y ago
From Guido: he expects "Python 4.0 will merely be "the release that comes after Python 3.9". That's it. No profound changes to the language, no major backwards compatibility breaks" http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.h... Would be nice if it was simply 3.10 not 4.0, as there's much discussion on that too.

Has there actually been a statement that python 4 will be backwards compatible to python 3?

by ctz 11y ago

Has there actually been a statement that python 4 will be backwards compatible to python 3?

Formally, no, but Guido expressed regret that Python 3 broke backwards compatibility, and made intentions of trying to minimize backwards incompatibility for Python 4.

untothebreach 11y ago

I don't have any links but I know there have been statements by core devs that, when/if there is another major version of python being developed, there will be an upgrade path to make the 3->4 transition much better than the 2->3 transition.

daveguy 11y ago
Yeah, they pretty much botched the 2->3 transition. I would love to see a 4 that included a viable 2->4 transition with semantic versioning until then. But Guido&Co are going to do whatever the hell they feel like doing, community be damned. Py2.7 will be forked and going strong long after 2020. Actually 2020 will probably be a Python renaissance when the cruft, incompatibilities, gil, no jit, etc can finally be addressed without the Guido mafia. 2.8 will be what 3 should have been, using deprecation for dated syntax and gradual introduction of new features. Python is open source. There will be a 2.8 regardless of whether Guido is involved.
- vegabook 11y ago
  > community be damned couldn't agree more. Yet all the evidence is that they're still using 3.x as their personal little hobby playground. Exhibit A: type annotations. Just because others are doing it. Nobody is asking for this. Even the PEP took ages to approve because even the yes-men had their doubts. Exhibit B: re-invent green threads. There are 15 solutions already. Where is GPU? Where is multicore? Where is speed? Where is the leadership?

gh02t 11y ago

I believe they said they were going to try very hard to not do major backwards compatible breaking changes again. > My current expectation is that Python 4.0 will merely be "the release that comes after Python 3.9". That's it. No profound changes to the language, no major backwards compatibility breaks - going from Python 3.9 to 4.0 should be as uneventful as going from Python 3.3 to 3.4 (or from 2.6 to 2.7). I even expect the stable Application Binary Interface (as first defined in PEP 384) to be preserved across the boundary. http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.h... (which was linked by Guido from his Twitter).

kazagistar 11y ago
... thats stupid. Semver isn't that complicated, and everyone understands what 3.10 means.
- cwyers 11y ago
  Semver isn't all that OLD; it came out in 2009, I think? (The SemVer site very helpfully doesn't have any dates on it.) Python, meanwhile, came out in 1991. Not having precognition made it difficult for Python to adopt SemVer, and now that they have versioning practices in place there needs to be more than "I like SemVer" as a compelling argument for them to change. Especially since there are reasonable people who have reasonable disagreements with how SemVer works.
  - mikestew 11y ago
    I have nothing to back this up other than my increasingly unreliable memory, but the semantics of SemVer goes back further than 2009. Maybe it wasn't formally written out, but as far back as the 90s that XX.YY.zz could be translated as XX == major changes, breaking changes for APIs, reworked UI for end-user apps. YY == some new functionality, no breaking/major changes. zz == bug fixes. It probably goes back further than that, and it was probably one of those "everybody knows..." kind of things, but it definitely didn't start to be a widely-known definition a measly seven years ago.

mrmb 11y ago

From Guido: he expects "Python 4.0 will merely be "the release that comes after Python 3.9". That's it. No profound changes to the language, no major backwards compatibility breaks" http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.html http://www.curiousefficiency.org/posts/2014/08/python-4000.h... Would be nice if it was simply 3.10 not 4.0, as there's much discussion on that too.