> one has the option use Python in a more "responsible"/efficient way That is so true. I wish it was the dominant way people used Python. The lack of backwar

> one has the option use Python in a more "responsible"/efficient way That is so true. I wish it was the dominant way people used Python. The lack of backward compatibility is still a bad thing. How can that be avoided by being responsible and/or efficient? I actually have no knowledge of the Python project ruling committee's policy on backward compatibility, I would be interested in those policies, and if they imply a way to stay safe. Saying, like I do, "Just do not use Python" is a bit of a waste of time (will not stop me). It would be nice to caution people: "Avoid this and that Python thing because it is vulnerable to being deprecated and use this and those which are not". I suspect there is no such policy. There are times when being wrong is a good thing....