Python 3.0 unfit for serious work?

[Steven Bethard]

Jay Tee wrote:
> Yo,
> 
> On Feb 16, 6:07 am, Steven Bethard <steven.beth... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Python 3.0 is determined not to be hampered by backwards incompatibility
>> concerns. It's not even clear yet that your average 2.6 code will work
> 
> Then Python is pretty much determined to remove itself from
> consideration
> from various kinds of international projects like the one I work on.

You snipped the rest of that comment:

"It's not even clear yet that your average 2.6 code will work on 3.0 -- 
though there's a pretty large contingent trying to make this true."

If you want to make sure average 2.6 code works on 3.0, please help 
contribute to Python. You can find out where best to focus your efforts 
by asking on python-dev:

     http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev

> If it's not backwards compatible, meaning if 2.4 code doesn't run on
> 3.0, it's rather likely that strong pressure will be applied to port
> *away* from Python into something less capricious.

Well, Python 2.4 code will work on Python 2.6 and 2.7 so just because 
your code isn't yet compatible with Python 3.0 doesn't mean you should 
give up on Python.

Python 2.2 was released in early 2003 and you said you'd be dropping 
support for 2.2 in early 2008, so I conclude that since Python 2.5 was 
released in late 2006, you'll be ready to drop Python 2.5 support (and 
have 2.6/3.0 compatible code) by late 2011. Sure, it's a long way off, 
but you're writing 2.2 compatible code *now*. Is it really that bad to 
wait four years for Python 3.0?

STeVe