Python 3.0 unfit for serious work?

[olsongt at verizon.net]

On Feb 20, 9:04 pm, "Jeff Templon" <jeff.temp... at gmail.com> wrote:
> yo,
>
> Bjorn, I am not sure I see why my post is bull crap.  I think all you
> are doing is agreeing with me.  My post was entitled "Python 3.0 unfit
> for serious work", you just indicated that the Linux distros will
> agree with me, in order to be taken seriously, the distros will have
> to include 2.x python for a very long time.  If 3.0 and 2.x have any
> serious degree of incompatibility, python will be a favorite subject
> for religious rants and heated arguments for many people.  And if we
> don't manage to restrain our d evelopers from using features that force
> us prematurely to move to 3.0 ... and don't underestimate what this
> means, because this means other things will have to move as well,
> which may have dependencies on yet other things like C++ library
> versions ... then I would have to, for reasons of maintainability,
> argue against continuing to allow python code development in the
> project.  I love python, but not enough to make 20+ people's lives
> difficult.
>
> There are already people making this sort of argument in our project.
>
>                        JT

I don't know the specifics of your app, but why does everyone insist
that they need to use the 'system' python?

At least one commercial python app I work with installs it's own
completely independant version of python.  For many apps where
predictible behaviour is required you can install 'your' python,
under /opt/myapp or /usr/local/myapp or whatever instead of python,
python2.2, python3, etc.  The downside is that you'll waste another
15Mb harddrive space, and you'll need to update your internal source
tree 4 or 5 times when maintenance releases come out.

Apologies if this sounds like a rant, I really mean it in a
constructive way.

-Grant