Why Turn "Print" into "Print()"????

[Terry Reedy]

"alex23" <wuwei23 at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b38b30a9-dbe1-4a78-ba14-7fc36ae20bf9 at z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
| On May 26, 7:21 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_... at yahoo.com> wrote:
| > But I'd read that Python 3 is very different in many important ways.
| > I read it right there on the Py3K site!  I can't make sense of how,
| > why, even what, exactly, but that's not a misimpression on my part, I
| > certain nonetheless...it's not just cosmetic changes but important
| > ones pertaining to a sort of "linguistic logic" I gather....

One important different for beginners is the elimination of old ways that 
no longer need be learned.  Another is that a few inconsistencies have be 
ironed out.

| Well, let's see what Guido says about the issue:
|
| Q. I want to learn Python. Should I learn Python 2.6 or Python 3.0?
|
| A. Definitely learn Python 2.x (the latest version out is 2.5). I
| expect it'll be two years before you'll need to learn Python 3.0, and
| the differences aren't that great from a beginner's perspective: most
| of what you'll learn about 2.x will still hold about 3.0.
|
| (from http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=211200)

My personal view is a little different.  Learn 3.0 unless you have a reason 
to learn 2.x (and there are many possible ;-).  Guido wrote the above 
nearly a year ago, before either existed to be learned.  As it turned out, 
a decision was made to backport most of the new features of 3.0 into 2.6 to 
ease the transition.  Consequently, 2.6 is in some sense the union of 2.5 
and 3.0, so that there is more to learn.  This is not a problem for Guido, 
but I can easily imagine that the extra duplication of function might be 
for a new learner, let alone someone like me who liked Python for its 
relative smallness.  I personally have no perceived need and hence no plans 
to ever touch 2.6.  So, depending on circumstances, again, I might suggest 
2.5 instead of 2.6.

tjr