Live data from Hacker News

Why I'm Making Python 2.8

naftaliharris.com

391–392 of 392 posts

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#391
post #381
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>C is also not based on solid foundations C is based on the solidest possible foundation: the actual hardware CPU.

The C abstract machine doesn't have that much in common with any actual hardware. I suppose it sort-of resembled the PDP-11 once.

C does not define an abstract machine. That's the runtime implementation's job.

Re: Why I'm Making Python 2.8

#392
post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that there's a huge split in the community over the issue shows just how divisive Python 3 is. That said, 3 > 2 in version number doesn't make it better or more "current" (and I've seen a number of projects where the "latest" version wasn't even the latest - it was often an experimental). Yes, you could do just about everything you need to in Python 3 that you can do in Python 2, except that it can be much m…

I do think the split is in use-cases. I've worked in film at both small and very large places. You can get by very easily ignoring things like color management and frame rates when you're doing small, homogenous work. As soon as you need to take it seriously, the only real way to handle these things is to tag and/or convert these things at the perimeter so you can reliably handle things internally in a consistent way…

Indeed. One has to wonder, then, about the controversial nature of Python breaking backwards compatibility for the sake of improvement. People are down on "Python 2.8" for changing the name, but the fact that there is no standard set-in-stone led to these problems to begin with. People want a reliable standard, so are the authors at fault for breaking that implied standard and carrying the name with them? Should they have changed the name to PythonU? Or do we always defer to the author's right to change both the VM and the implied standard at will? It's a human-party-pleasing problem because the changes obviously hurt some people (those having to rewrite libraries, which may be easy or very hard and time consuming) for the sake of helping others (who would have time-bomb buggy programs in 2). shrug
Post reply on HN