|
|
|
|
|
|
by AlbertCory
999 days ago
|
|
|
all arguably true, but it has no bearing on whether 3 was necessary in the first place. > With your argument about compatibility no programming language would ever be able to evolve "evolve" and "change" are not ends in themselves. If it was usable as it was, then there was no need to evolve or change in an incompatible way. 15 years ago: also irrelevant. World War One was unnecessary, and that was 109 years ago. Whatever issues existed are sorted out by now, but that doesn't mean it had to happen. |
|
|
That you find them unnecessary because the original code was "usable as is" for you is irrelevant.
The reasons why these changes have been done (for a developer they have been fairly minor) has been hashed and rehashed for the past 15 years, Guido van Rossum wrote on it extensively too.
Most has been performance-related (Python 3 is significantly faster than 2) and probably the biggest user-visible change is the clean up of string handling with everything being Unicode now.
Frankly, anyone complaining about this stuff today is just beating the old dead horse for the sake of having something to complain about. The same like some people constantly bringing up the Linux systemd discussions after more than a decade, even though they are completely irrelevant today.