Pep 3105: the end of print?

[Jay Tee]

On Feb 23, 8:48 am, I V <wrong... at gmail.com> 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