On Dec 7, 12:35 pm, Andreas Waldenburger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Plze. Python 3 is shipping now, and so is 2.x, where x 5. Python
2 is going to be around for quite some time. What is everybody's
problem?
A possible, potential, problem, could arise if you were using python
2.x, but some
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM, walterbyrd walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:35 pm, Andreas Waldenburger geekm...@usenot.de wrote:
Plze. Python 3 is shipping now, and so is 2.x, where x 5. Python
2 is going to be around for quite some time. What is everybody's
problem?
A
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:21:55 -0800 (PST) walterbyrd
walterb...@iname.com wrote:
On Dec 7, 12:35 pm, Andreas Waldenburger geekm...@usenot.de wrote:
Plze. Python 3 is shipping now, and so is 2.x, where x 5.
Python 2 is going to be around for quite some time. What is
everybody's
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:25:59 -0500, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Lie Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:48:46 +, Tim Rowe wrote:
snip
But that's what a major release number does for you. Modula2 was
quite a break from Modula. Think of
Troll?
bye
N
walterbyrd wrote:
IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
done when it is seriously needed.
Also, IMO, most of, if not all, of the changes being made in 3.0 are
debatable, at best. I can not think of anything that is being changed
that was
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:48:46 +, Tim Rowe wrote:
2008/12/7 walterbyrd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
done when it is seriously needed.
Also, IMO, most of, if not all, of the changes being made in 3.0 are
debatable, at best. I can
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 20:56 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
Actually I noticed a tendency from open-source projects to have slow
increment of version number, while proprietary projects usually have
big
version numbers.
Linux 2.x: 1991 Python 3.x.x: 1991. Apache 2.0: 1995. OpenOffice.org
3.0:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:10:08 -0500, Albert Hopkins wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 20:56 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
Actually I noticed a tendency from open-source projects to have slow
increment of version number, while proprietary projects usually have
big
version numbers.
Linux 2.x: 1991
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Lie Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:48:46 +, Tim Rowe wrote:
2008/12/7 walterbyrd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
done when it is seriously needed.
Also, IMO, most of, if
On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:56:19 +, Lie Ryan wrote:
Interestingly, many linux _distro_ also inhibit this quick version
number change. Fedora 10, Ubuntu is 2 years old, version 8 (they start
from version 6 not 1).
Ubuntu's version numbers don't follow the usual rules but are year and
month of
IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
done when it is seriously needed.
Also, IMO, most of, if not all, of the changes being made in 3.0 are
debatable, at best. I can not think of anything that is being changed
that was really a show stopper anyway.
At best, I am
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:22:23 -0800 (PST) walterbyrd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
done when it is seriously needed.
Plze. Python 3 is shipping now, and so is 2.x, where x 5. Python
2 is going to be around for quite some
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:35:53 +0100 Andreas Waldenburger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:22:23 -0800 (PST) walterbyrd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At best, I am a casual python user, so it's likely that I am missing
something.
Yes, the big picture.
OK, that was a bit harsh. I
walterbyrd:
I can not think of anything that is being changed that was really a show
stopper anyway.
I agree, but Python and its culture has a characteristic that not many
other languages share: it tries to be a tidy language, to have one
obvious way to do most things, it values readability
Have a read of this http://www.b-list.org/weblog/2008/dec/05/python-3000/
It's a response to questions similar to yours by James Bennett
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:22 PM, walterbyrd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
done when it is
2008/12/7 walterbyrd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
IMO: breaking backward compatibility is a big deal, and should only be
done when it is seriously needed.
Also, IMO, most of, if not all, of the changes being made in 3.0 are
debatable, at best. I can not think of anything that is being changed
that was
changed
that was really a show stopper anyway.
At best, I am a casual python user, so it's likely that I am missing
something.
To answer your subject line: Is 3.0 worth breaking backward
compatibility?
That depends on what you are doing with Python.
Python 3 is the future of Python. Show
17 matches
Mail list logo
