On Feb 23, 8:48 am, I V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While that's true, C++ compiler vendors, for example, take backwards > compatibility significantly less seriously, it seems to me. A year or so > ago, I tried compiling something I'd written for g++ 2, using a > then-recent-ish g++ 3; it failed spectacularly. Likewise with Visual C++ 6 > and a Visual C++ 2005. The suggestion that "working programmers" > will reject python if a major version change introduces some backwards > incompatibilities is not borne out by the experience of any other > language I am aware of.
The experience with C++ in our project is similar to yours. I think the real reason is that the compiler tries to be more true to the standard than to past implementations; past implementations accepted incorrect syntax, newer "improved" compilers broke backwards compatibility by rejecting the incorrect syntax. Can't blame 'em, C++ syntax is hard ... don't try this at home, kids ... On the other hand, C++ is firmly established as a "serious" language in our community while python is not. So the programmers tend to be more forgiving. There is no perception that compiler developers are *trying* to be difficult by changing the language to break backwards compatibility. That's the difference I think. JT -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
