Quote:
Originally Posted by ocicat
On the other hand, Python had object extensions tacked onto the language long after its inception, & it shows. I have not studied Python3 enough to have an opinion, but I suspect that providing any level of backward compatibility will hamper Python from becoming as syntactically powerful as Ruby.
|
I first encountered Python in the 2.4'ish days so that's where I'm most used to it. Compatibility is quite broken between major versions but not shorter gaps. Aside from issues relating to string types, you can easily write code that will run on Python 2.6 and 3.1 without much trouble. General compatibility between 2.6 and 3.1 is very good (by design), but for example, don't expect 3.1 and 2.2 code to work together.
Since the early days Python has gotten better with the OO stuff, but culturally, it's not as ingrained as with Ruby. I'm almost surprised that Ruby doesn't follow closer to Java / C# in some ways.
__________________
My
Journal
Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''.