On 05/04/18 04:02, Mark Lawrence wrote: > Python 3.6 has more functionality than 2.7 by definition, but your > comment implies, at least to me, that 2.7 and 3.6 are chalk and cheese. > Nothing could be further from the truth and has regrettably been one of > the reasons for the dreadfully slow uptake of Python 3.
I disagree. Apart from the superficial language compatibility issues, which 2.7 can partially address by importing from future, the libraries are dramatically different. Any non trivial program runs into issues the minute it starts importing modules. module names are different, function names within those modules are different, return values and parameter types are different. Given Python programming relies hugely on the modules in the standard library I find it impossible to produce code that works across 2.7 and 3.x without significant effort to force compatibility. That's why tools like six etc exist. You may have been luckier than me but in my experience the gap between the two versions is significant and not to be underestimated. -- Alan G Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.alan-g.me.uk/ http://www.amazon.com/author/alan_gauld Follow my photo-blog on Flickr at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alangauldphotos _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor