On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Simo Sorce <ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 10:47 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> > On Mon, 2008-12-08 at 12:35 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: >> > >> > I just don't get why any sane person, especially anyone familiar with >> > computer languages, would ever want to give something that is not the >> > same the same name. Does anyone know how the developer(s) manage this >> > themselves? I have to think they are keeping multiple concurrent >> > versions installed (and that that is the only reasonable approach). >> >> I'm pretty certain that if you look at any language, they've all faced >> similar scenarios, major version upgrades that may in fact not be >> forward no backward compatible. People have dealt with it and moved on. >> No language is perfect. > > Never seen C/C++ break backward compatibility on a scale like Python 3.0 > will. > And they are compiled, where the impact is 100 fold less than for > interpreted languages ... > > I would personally strongly consider having 2.x and 3.0 parallel > installable ... Isn't Python designed to be parallel installable? -- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com ) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
