Python 3.0 Released

licorna writes "The 3.0 version of Python (also known as Python3k and Python3000) just got released few hours ago. It's the first ever intentionally backwards-incompatible Python release."

Comments

Re:Libraries

[Alomex]

Backward compatibility is (i) over-rated and (ii) misunderstood.

It is over-rated in the sense that the number of current users which are inconvenienced is a very small percentage of the total number of users of the language (unless the language is in the tail end of its life, like Fortran and Cobol).

It is misunderstood in that with the use of a simple header or import declaration it is possible to have two different versions co-exist while the transition happens. This is done in HTTP where the first thing that clients exchange is the version of the protocol they'll use. It is also done in LaTeX, where the first declaration informs the compiler which major version is being used (pre-2e or 2e).

Kudos for Python for not being afraid to rock the backwards compatibility boat.

Re:I'll still avoid it

[cleatsupkeep]

Well, the big issue I've run into with Python is when you are editing across multiple text editors, where some might use tabs, and some might use spaces. This seems to trip up Python where it wouldn't mess with a brace delimited language or something with an "end" syntax like Ruby.

Re:Libraries

[Alomex]

Fortran will continue to thrive for many years.

I agree. The point is that the number of current users is a non-negligible percentage of the universe of future users. It is in that sense that it is "near the tail end".

For languages which are very early in their life cycle, such as Python, the number of users inconvenienced today are negligible compared to the total number of users that it will have and benefit from the changes.

Re:Libraries

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but think it was designed by someone who was pissed off that people didn't format their code the way he formatted his code. Since his way was obviously the "right" way, why not write a language that forces you to do it that way? Problem solved!

This is actually the main reason I haven't worked with Python beyond tweaking a few existing scripts. The funny thing is that (unless I'm misremembering the syntax) I already code using that style in other languages. But the idea of forcing that style on everyone annoys me enough to put me off of the language as a whole.

I was really hoping that 3.0 would remove that petty stupidity. Doing so would even retain backwards compatibility with prior versions!

I just don't get it when people say that, its sorta like saying you don't use language X because you have to store numbers as floats or integers instead of char variables.

I honestly like the fact that Python forces a coding format, I hate opening someone else's source and spending the first minutes trying to understand how they layout things if at all. And yes if people were smart it would be easy to pickup anyones code, sadly that world doesn't exist.

No its not petty stupidity, not using Python because of your reasons is sadly what I would call petty stupidity.

Re:Libraries

[Vornzog]

I wonder if Fortran may eventually be replaced by Python.

Already has been, in my world. I know plenty of people around the chem department who still use Fortran because 'it is the language of scientific computing, dammit!'

Here is the thing. Most of the time, they were so panicked about how long the program would take to run, they lost sight of how long it took them to write it.

I replaced many Fortran programs with Python in my time, because I could write the data IO so much faster, and then just use the C-level numerical libraries to do the analysis. The program would end up running just as fast, and the code could be written in an hour instead of a week.

Some people will die before they change languages. The rest of us just want our results. Hopefully, the switch to py3k goes easy and the community continues to grow.