Yo, On Feb 16, 6:07 am, Steven Bethard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Python 3.0 is determined not to be hampered by backwards incompatibility > concerns. It's not even clear yet that your average 2.6 code will work
Then Python is pretty much determined to remove itself from consideration from various kinds of international projects like the one I work on. We're already catching flack from people due to a few things that were valid in 2.2 that are not valid in 2.3 (I don't have the details but could scare them up). The project we work on contains code from many different people and has to run on thousands of computers all over the world. The installed base at the moment is a mix of RHEL 3, RHEL 4, and Debian, with a few other machines thrown in. The relevant Python versions at this moment IIRC are 2.2.3 and 2.3.4, because these are the native versions on those platforms. We are estimating, due to the speed at which our applications follow OS releases, that we can drop RHEL 3 (and hence Python 2.2) support a year from now. Go figure when you think we might be ready to require that all programs run on python 3.0. If it's not backwards compatible, meaning if 2.4 code doesn't run on 3.0, it's rather likely that strong pressure will be applied to port *away* from Python into something less capricious. Bottom line: practicality and beauty is always a tradeoff. Oberon is the most beautiful language I ever saw, but there is almost nobody using it any more. Too many beauty contests over who had the best proposal for a standard library. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list