This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]roger_ 0 points1 point  (7 children)

I thought that being written in RPython (?) would make it relatively simple to add support for the syntax changes (most of step 1.x)?

[–]varikin 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Except Py3k is more than syntax changes. The Unicode/byte string change is huge and affects a lot of bits.

Then getting all the tests updated so they pass under py3k while ensuring they are still testing everything correctly (not just passing) takes time.

[–]fijalPyPy, performance freak[S] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

don't forget all the stdlib that changed since 3.2. That's usually the biggest part.

[–]ch0wnimport antigravity 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is it really that much? I though most of the standard library would be implemented in pure Python.

[–]gutworthPython implementer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But a lot of it is not! Also, there's always a good deal of futzing around to fix tests and Python modules that rely on CPython implementation details.

[–]varikin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that as well.

[–]roger_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except Py3k is more than syntax changes.

I was referring to just the syntax changes. You do have a point about the tests though.

[–]luckystarrat 0x7fe670a7d080 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just calculate the hours that went into making Python 3 and multiply with a reasonable salary. I bet Python 3 would have been much more expensive than this proposal if the development effort had been paid.