16 replies to this topic

[Crispin]

I'm seeing this in the Python homepage.

Sunday, March 4
Python 3.3.0 alpha 1
Sunday, April 1
Python 3.3.0 alpha 2
Sunday, April 29
Python 3.3.0 alpha 3

Also, what's new.

Edited by Crispin, 24 February 2012 - 11:10 AM.

[Pyro699]

I dont see the point to this

We still use python 2.7

[ShadowLink64]

I dont see the point to this

We still use python 2.7

My thoughts exactly. Very... informative?

[Crispin]

I myself am learning Python 3. I figure if I'm gonna learn the language, might as well learn the one to be used in the future.

No interest whatsoever? Figured people might at least want to get the update when it comes out if only to be able to run 3.3 programs. >_>

Edited by Crispin, 24 February 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[Norava]

I was using Python 3, but almost all the guides are written in 2, so I just switched back.

[Pyro699]

"I was using Python 3, but then i took an arrow to the knee"

Python 2.7 is still widely used on many platforms and is still the core of a lot of linux distros...

[DoNotAnnoyMe]

"I was using Python 3, but then i took an arrow to the knee"

Python 2.7 is still widely used on many platforms and is still the core of a lot of linux distros...

to add to that: even those who ship python 3 also ship 2.7 by default as well as most older scripts just don't work with 3.x

[Hydrogen]

to add to that: even those who ship python 3 also ship 2.7 by default as well as most older scripts just don't work with 3.x

Just to add to this so everyone knows the reason: there are many syntactical changes that come with python 3. A python 2.x interpreter can't even load a python 3 program because of this. The features that have been added to python 3.x have been backported to python 2.x too, so that everyone can take advantage of the new stuff.

[Melchoire]

I myself am learning Python 3. I figure if I'm gonna learn the language, might as well learn the one to be used in the future.

No interest whatsoever? Figured people might at least want to get the update when it comes out if only to be able to run 3.3 programs. >_>

The differences you see are likely not in the syntax(actually it most likely isn't, but I haven't looked)

The changes are usually done to low level components like code optimizations or new modules and libraries.

This would hardly have any effect on you as a beginner to the language but I agree it's best to learn the latest versions but make sure you know what the differences are. In case you ever come across a machine that only has the old version...

Just to add to this so everyone knows the reason: there are many syntactical changes that come with python 3. A python 2.x interpreter can't even load a python 3 program because of this. The features that have been added to python 3.x have been backported to python 2.x too, so that everyone can take advantage of the new stuff.

I guess I was wrong...but what are these syntactic changes?


E: reading this : http://docs.python.o...atsnew/3.2.html

The majority of the list talks about improvements to libraries and optimizations.

[Hydrogen]

I guess I was wrong...but what are these syntactic changes?

E: reading this : http://docs.python.o...atsnew/3.2.html

The majority of the list talks about improvements to libraries and optimizations.

Well, those improvements may have been introduced in python 3.x, but since many have been backported to 2.x (list comprehensions, for example), users can use them without having to upgrade to full pythonn 3.x. The real question is what still exists in python 3.x that isn't in python 2.x, and to my understanding, that is syntax changes. Possibly other things?

[Melchoire]

Well, those improvements may have been introduced in python 3.x, but since many have been backported to 2.x (list comprehensions, for example), users can use them without having to upgrade to full pythonn 3.x. The real question is what still exists in python 3.x that isn't in python 2.x, and to my understanding, that is syntax changes. Possibly other things?

So list comprehensions were not originally present in 2.x and they are a change to the python syntax?

[Hydrogen]

So list comprehensions were not originally present in 2.x and they are a change to the python syntax?

Yes, list comprehensions were originally introduced in python 3.x, and were back ported to 2.x so users still using 2.x could use them. That's why 2.x is being released alongside 3.x, so people can use the new features, without having to upgrade to an entirely new language.

[Melchoire]

Yes, list comprehensions were originally introduced in python 3.x, and were back ported to 2.x so users still using 2.x could use them. That's why 2.x is being released alongside 3.x, so people can use the new features, without having to upgrade to an entirely new language.

Sounds like one of those really nice features that everyone wanted =P Anyway, so what's the difference between v2 and v3 if everything gets backported? Or is it not everything?

[Crispin]

Sounds like one of those really nice features that everyone wanted =P Anyway, so what's the difference between v2 and v3 if everything gets backported? Or is it not everything?

From what I've read unicode strings were a complete nightmare in Python 2. That's one of the big things they changed in Python 3 that can't be backported. Apart from that there's a lot of syntactic cleanup and stuff I don't understand.

[RitzWin]

Mmmmmm I'd really like unicode string improvement I deal with those all the time@ work

[Irradium]

Mmmmmm I'd really like unicode string improvement I deal with those all the time@ work

I know it's a 'dead' thread, but I just need to add this:

No, you don't. Byte strings, while undesirable, are much easier to work with, especially with files (at least until Python 3's strings are cleaned up anyway).

Edited by Russell, 10 May 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[data]

I don't like anything but Python 2.7

Python 2.7 is so stable and simple. Who would dare silence print by forcing it to have bracket?