Re: Why has python3 been created as a seperate language where thereis still python2.7 ?

Discussion in 'Python' started by Stefan Behnel, Jun 25, 2012.

  1. gmspro, 24.06.2012 05:46:
    > Why has python3 been created as a seperate language where there is still python2.7 ?
    >
    > What's the benifit to make python3 over python2.7 ? I have read this though: http://docs.python.org/release/3.0.1/whatsnew/3.0.html
    >
    > What's wrong editing/customizing/changin python2.7 instead of making a seperate language?
    >
    > What's wrong working with python2.7?
    >
    > As python3 is not backward compatible, so many packages built on python2.7 will be gone someday. Or you have to re-write/upgrade to python3. That's a tedious/labourious task.
    >
    > So after 5 years will we get another python4 as seperate language?
    >
    > Any answer will be highly appreciated.


    Note that this topic has been discussed in full and overly full length
    several times on this list. You may want to read up on it in the archives.

    I'm not sure if you're just trolling (posting suggestive questions with
    well-known answers is a well established troll metier) or if you really
    want an answer to your questions, but here's a short answer anyway.

    The intention of Py3 was to deliberately break backwards compatibility in
    order to clean up the language. The situation is not as bad as you seem to
    think, a huge amount of packages have been ported to Python 3 already
    and/or work happily with both language dialects. It's not an either-or kind
    of thing, you can have both with a little effort.

    And, no, there won't be a Py4 in 5 years. The established release time
    frame is way longer.

    Stefan
    Stefan Behnel, Jun 25, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stefan Behnel

    John Nagle Guest

    On 6/25/2012 1:36 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
    > gmspro, 24.06.2012 05:46:
    >> Why has python3 been created as a seperate language where there is still python2.7 ?


    > The intention of Py3 was to deliberately break backwards compatibility in
    > order to clean up the language. The situation is not as bad as you seem to
    > think, a huge amount of packages have been ported to Python 3 already
    > and/or work happily with both language dialects.


    The syntax changes in Python 3 are a minor issue for
    serious programmers. The big headaches come from packages that
    aren't being ported to Python 3 at all. In some cases, there's
    a replacement package from another author that performs the
    same function, but has a different API. Switching packages
    involves debugging some new package with, probably, one
    developer and a tiny user community.

    The Python 3 to MySQL connection is still a mess.
    The original developer of MySQLdb doesn't want to support
    Python 3. There's "pymysql", but it hasn't been updated
    since 2010 and has a long list of unfixed bugs.
    There was a "MySQL-python-1.2.3-py3k" port by a third party,
    but the domain that hosted it
    ("http://www.elecmor.mooo.com/python/MySQL-python-1.2.3-py3k.zip") is
    dead. There's
    MySQL for Python 3 (https://github.com/davispuh/MySQL-for-Python-3)
    but it doesn't work on Windows. MySQL Connector
    (https://code.launchpad.net/myconnpy) hasn't been updated in a
    while, but at least has some users. OurSQL has a different
    API than MySQLdb, and isn't quite ready for prime time yet.

    That's why I'm still on Python 2.7.

    John Nagle
    John Nagle, Jun 26, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:08 AM, John Nagle <> wrote:
    >    The Python 3 to MySQL connection is still a mess.
    > The original developer of MySQLdb doesn't want to support
    > Python 3.


    This is where I would start asking: How hard is it to migrate to
    another SQL database (eg Postgres)? That is, assuming that there's one
    with proper Py3 support. But I would find it hard to believe that
    there's _no_ good database with a Python 3 access module.

    ChrisA
    Chris Angelico, Jun 26, 2012
    #3
  4. Stefan Behnel

    HoneyMonster Guest

    On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:39:42 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

    > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:08 AM, John Nagle <> wrote:
    >>    The Python 3 to MySQL connection is still a mess.
    >> The original developer of MySQLdb doesn't want to support Python 3.

    >
    > This is where I would start asking: How hard is it to migrate to another
    > SQL database (eg Postgres)? That is, assuming that there's one with
    > proper Py3 support. But I would find it hard to believe that there's
    > _no_ good database with a Python 3 access module.


    psycopg2 (Python interface to PostgreSQL) supports Python 3.1 and 3.2 as
    well as Python 2. It works superbly.

    PostgreSQL is a far better database then MySQL anyway.
    HoneyMonster, Jun 26, 2012
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,736
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  2. Terry
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    754
    Дамјан ГеоргиевÑки
    Feb 8, 2009
  3. Andrew Berg
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    239
    Andrew Berg
    Jun 25, 2012
  4. Michiel Overtoom
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    543
    Chris Angelico
    Jun 28, 2012
  5. fl
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    259
    Rui Maciel
    Jan 6, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page