4 ms·
No, IMO. Don't get me wrong, Python 3 is a better language than Python 2. I just don't think it's that much better that it was worth breaking backwards compatib
by bakery2k 8y ago
No, IMO. Don't get me wrong, Python 3 is a better language than Python 2. I just don't think it's that much better that it was worth breaking backwards compatibility and stalling the language for several years.
Python 3 did enough to break everyone's existing code, but nowhere near enough to make that worthwhile.
It's common for other language communities to consider the Python 2/3 transition as an example of "what not to do".
- mixmastamyk 8y agoI skipped 3.0-3.3 and used the logging module in every nontrivial program, so py3 never broke anything of consequence to me.
- ravenstine 8y agoHow hard is it to simply keep one's code up to date? I'm pretty sure there weren't any radically different paradigms introduced in Python 3. Somehow the world of JavaScript has been able to quickly adapt to a rapidly changing language and the community is hardly fractured along the lines of language. Adopting new language features and browser APIs is just a matter of fact. What's different about Python?
- h1d 8y agoJavaScript has been stuck with an ancient version because of browser adoption like IE6. There's a good reason people wanted to migrate to newer JS and I never heard people say ES6 got something wrong over ES5.