2 ms·
>If they had have called Python 3.0 v2.9 instead everyone would have been clear they had to migrate. Massive breakage of backwards compatibility in a minor rel
by eriknstr 10y ago
>If they had have called Python 3.0 v2.9 instead everyone would have been clear they had to migrate.
Massive breakage of backwards compatibility in a minor release is bad form. They absolutely did the right thing by naming it Python 3.0.
- andy_ppp 10y agoThey could deprecate the breaking changes - for example Python 2.8 could make print statements needlessly more awkward to write but warn instead of error and Python 2.9/3.0 could make the changes permanent. Rather than have this huge break maybe just take the time to move all of Python forward rather than us still 8 years after Python 3 leave us still talking about it.
- kstrauser 10y ago> They could deprecate the breaking changes - for example Python 2.8 could make print statements needlessly more awkward to write but warn instead of error Interesting. Now I want to make my own Python 2.8 which is 2.7.latest with the "-3" command line argument hardcoded to always be set.