On Tuesday, August 08, 2017 08:58:04 PM Ole Streicher wrote: > Diane Trout <di...@ghic.org> writes: > >> What I am opposing is the suggestion to install, in the near to > >> medium > >> term, a command of exactly the same name that has subtly similar but > >> incompatible behaviour, when that behaviour *already* has a command – > >> ‘python3’ – that is widely used by those who need it. > > > > my problem with that plan is all of the printed documentation saying to > > learn python, type "python". > > All *actual* printed documentation? Which refers to Python 3? Could you > give an example here? > > Otherwise, (if using a Python 2 book), one of the next steps would be > "print 'hello world'", and nothing would prevent from the horrible > experience that the book is outdated anyway. > > Sorry, I don't see the problem with "printed documentation".
Having recently (late last year) searched for a beginner's Python book for one of my kids, I can tell you that current offers range between "Only a few people use Python 3, so you're better off ignoring this odd duck while you learn" to "Python 3 is the future, so you may as well start be learning the future rather than the past". I don't recall any current books that didn't at least acknowledge the existence of this Python 3 thing. Based on that (admittedly incomplete) survey, I think confusion about the existence of Python/Python 3 is a problem with current dead tree learning Python editions. If you're trying to learn something new with old documentation, I don't think it should be surprising there are a few bumps along the way. I agree. Scott K