Python 3.0 unfit for serious work?

[Paul Boddie]

Jay Tee wrote:
>
> Paul, thanks for this, I didn't realize the scope of the situation.  I
> agree with your assessment to the extent that I understand what the
> whole python 3.0 thing is about.

I don't know if I've delimited the scope of any situation, really.
However...

[...]

> The fact that there are three (or
> four depending if you count Linz V4) different Oberon System
> implementations, and several different compilers, and even four or
> five separate dialects of Oberon with none of them appearing to be
> really "official",

[...]

The fortunate thing about different Python implementations and in
contrast to a lot of other languages and their implementations is that
the most actively developed Python implementation, CPython, is very
portable and is present on all major operating systems of consequence
(capable of running it). Other languages have suffered because there'd
be a UNIX version and then a version for Windows or the Mac which
wasn't as well maintained, or perhaps no version at all for one or
more of these platforms. So with Python, even if one implementation is
lagging behind (eg. Jython) there's still likely to be some deployment
solution on one's operating system of choice, given some level of
flexibility.

Where incompatibilities may arise with Python implementations is in
the level of support for recent language developments and additions.
Again, CPython's portability prevents this from becoming an operating
system issue, but we see rifts between implementations targeting
different runtime platforms, and whilst CPython 2.x and CPython 3.x
may continue to cover similar operating systems (although a desire to
drop support for various operating systems was stated), it's the rift
between them that presents the risk to any common notion of what
Python actually is.

Paul