3 ms·

It taking 10 years to transition from 2 to 3 wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Definitely concerns that more hands could make another Angular, which had 2 incomp

• josephg 6y ago
  > It taking 10 years to transition from 2 to 3 wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The python3 interpreter could have been largely (or completely) source-compatible with python2 code. They could have done it rust2018 style - where source code files can opt in to a newer parser, and in return get access to the new features. Then the whole python3 drama would have been avoided. MacOS still ships with a python 2.7 interpreter because of all that nonsense. But if they only had 2 full-time people working on it, no wonder they didn't have the man power to do the transition any other way. Disappointing.
  • my123 6y ago
    Which puts a: > WARNING: Python 2.7 is not recommended. > This version is included in macOS for compatibility with legacy software. > Future versions of macOS will not include Python 2.7. > Instead, it is recommended that you transition to using 'python3' from within Terminal. banner on launch nowadays...
    • josephg 6y ago
      Right; none of this should be necessary. I don’t need an old version of my C compiler in order to compile old C files. Rust made breaking changes to their language and yet a modern rust compiler will happily compile the older 2015 rust syntax. Python could have gone down the same road; but I suppose all of python’s corporate users chose to fight python compatibility changes locally rather than donate time / money fixing python itself.