On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Simo Sorce ssorce@redhat.com 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?