Comment

Comment by nendroid

>Second, Python 2 to Python 3 was horrible, and created political problems which hadn't existed before. Now, at the end of the transition, we can see how badly it was managed; Python 2 could have been retrofitted with nearly every breaking change and it would have been lower-friction.

This doesn't make any logical sense. Your saying take the breaking changes in python 3 and put it into python 2? That's just a version number. You can call it version 2.999999.8 and do all the changes in there and the outcome is identical.

No. Every breaking change must have a downstream change in every library that uses that breaking change. That's the reality of breaking changes. No way around it.

Tell me of such a migration as huge as python 2->3 that was as successful. For sure there were huge problems along the way and it took forever. However I have heard of very very few migrations in the open source world that ended up with an outcome as successful as python.

>First, the excellent readability leads directly into hard-to-read code structures.

I don't agree with this either. You refer to fortran but most programmers here haven't used it so you'll have to provide an example for readers to see your point.

parent nendroid 6 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton