The looming Python 3(000) monster

[Les Mikesell]

Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 2008-12-05, 14:42 GMT, Michael DeHaan wrote:
>> I personally haven't tried it yet, but it /aims/ to be 
>> incompatble, which is perhaps one of the most glaring signs 
>> a language designer has lost it that I've seen.
> 
> Guido was preparing on this incompatibility for years, so unless 
> you were sleeping you should not be surprised.

Not being surprised is one thing, but I don't see how anyone could be 
prepared other than not using any python code.


>> but it's pretty bad for someone who wants to keep a single 
>> codebase across EL 4 (Python 2.3) and up, which I think a lot 
>> of us do.
> 
> The party line is that you should develop against python 2.6 
> (which doesn't block you from being compatible with Python 2.3) 
> and then conversion from 2.6 to 3.* would be guaranteed to be 
> done just with a script.

Is there some shortage of names?  Why can't a new and incompatible 
language be given a different name so people don't try to use it with 
the old and different code?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com