On 05/04/18 09:39, Alan Gauld via Tutor wrote:
On 05/04/18 04:02, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Python 3.6 has more functionality than 2.7 by definition, but your
comment implies, at least to me, that 2.7 and 3.6 are chalk and cheese.
Nothing could be further from the truth and has regrettably been one of
the reasons for the dreadfully slow uptake of Python 3.
I disagree. Apart from the superficial language compatibility issues,
which 2.7 can partially address by importing from future, the libraries
are dramatically different. Any non trivial program runs into issues the
minute it starts importing modules. module names are different, function
names within those modules are different, return values and parameter
types are different.
Given Python programming relies hugely on the modules in the standard
library I find it impossible to produce code that works across 2.7
and 3.x without significant effort to force compatibility. That's why
tools like six etc exist.
You may have been luckier than me but in my experience the gap
between the two versions is significant and not to be underestimated.
Mountains out of molehills. I suggest that you give up programming.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
