2 ms·
> Python 3 changed nothing. Sorry, have you tried to maintain a C extension for both 2/3? Or a unicode heavy application? This is a silly statement, there's a
by vnlab 6y ago
> Python 3 changed nothing.
Sorry, have you tried to maintain a C extension for both 2/3? Or a unicode heavy application?
This is a silly statement, there's a reason that major packages took a decade to migrate. There are thousands of little details that are incompatible.
- sergeykish 6y agoFrom user perspective. Gains. Nothing required big 2/3 change. Ruby and Go done it right — a series of small changes. Python 2.* had it right. The attitude of language developers was clearly stated in PEP 414 and 2to3 approach — no backward compatibility. That is nonsense, every python program had backward compatibility several minor versions deep. Select one issue and work on it. Unicode: # python prev u"" # or from __future__ import unicode_literals b"" vs # python next u"" b"" # or from __past__ import binary_literals Facts speak for itself, change was to big for users to overcome it, price was too high. I've lived through Ruby string changes, not a big deal. Wayland transition is nothing like Python 2/3. It is big but mostly invisible, XWayland runs X11 applications, toolkits hide implementation details, no X.Org deprecation.