this article takes awhile to get to the point, but the point is correct which is: > In other words, this is how it should be, that you write your code once, and you can use any supported language version to run it/compile it, or develop in. But for some reason, this obvious solution has been discouraged by Guido and other Python documents, as seen above. I just looked up the latest official Python docs, and that one…
> I'll start with the conclusion: making backwards incompatible version of a language is a terrible idea, and it was bad a mistake. > So let me fix that: I do recommend a single code base as the solution. > The original advice to think very separately about your 2.x and 3.x codebases was very wrong, has wasted a ton of time (since you end up porting to python 3 twice), and overall slowed down the adoption of py3k, a…
Re: How to support both Python 2 and 3
#21If 'raises questions about governance' means the leadership can't predict the future, then I agree. Else, this is not fair, since features were added to Python 2.6 to reduce migration pain (which incidentally enabled this single-codebase thing possible).