3 ms·
Not sure why you're getting downvotes. The 2 vs 3 has already split part of Python's userbase. Another change that broke significant amounts of code would jus
by imron 11y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvotes. The 2 vs 3 has already split part of Python's userbase.
Another change that broke significant amounts of code would just make things even worse.
- x0x0 11y agoI'm not sure that's true. My objection to 3 was it did nothing for me. All I got out of it was work dumped in my lap just so my code would continue running. Giving us a GIL-less pypy with jvm-scale performance would be worth a lot of hassle.
- sangnoir 11y ago> My objection to 3 was it did nothing for me...Giving us a GIL-less pypy with jvm-scale performance would be worth a lot of hassle. worth a lot of hassle to you. I imagine there are people who wouldn't find it worth the hassle. e.g. people who use python as a glue language where it's not close to being near the performance bottleneck - breaking the language to make it 'faster' would do nothing for them.