python 2 or 3

https://pythonclock.org/

if you use 2 you're a faggot and everything wrong with python and why I still have to use perl 5 for "portable" scripting.

>>62325462
whatever fucks your goat

>>62325462
Ruby.

>>62325474

not-backward-compatible version bump
biggest difference is print statement

File: face rage blur3423.png (371KB, 832x868px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 832x868px

>>62325462
Python 3 is a joke
>make print a function for some reason
>get rid of xrange
Seriously who thought this was OK?

>>62325751
they made xrange into range.

relax

>>62325570
Maybe they could have done 3 properly without breaking changes making upgrading easier? There was nothing wrong with 2, I don't want to use 3.

>>62325462
Java

>>62325462
2 cos everything off shelf werks

File: 1486740522354.jpg (132KB, 391x311px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 391x311px

>>62325462
Both.

Not even kidding, you'll sometimes find that you need to thinker or update some old scripts, other times you might need the latest versions for the project you're on.

Hell, you can learn the difference between them in a single day, they're not so different as you may be thinking.

>>62326021
turok 2 - seeds of evil

>>62325462
python2, by the time python3 is popular enough, python will be already obsoleted.

>>62325969
2 literally had no future. it was pure shit and inconsistent as fuck.
3 cleaned it up and added useful features.
also have fun when no one maintains it anymore in 2020.

you fucks need to die.

>>62325751
xrange and range were redundant.

now range creates a proper generator iterator just like xrange. having both is completely fucking stupid.

and print not being a function was retarded and making it one made configuring output much less retarded.

Python 3 masterrace reporting in

>>62326264
they weren't quite redundant, but people generally should have been using xrange when they were using range, and people that *definitely* wanted a list object (rather than a generator) were happy enough to do `list(range(n))`.

it wasn't totally retarded to have both, but given the performance advantages and the fact that most people don't actually need a list object, it was kind of retarded to make the more resource-intensive one more "reachable" (e.g., most people were learning about range first and probably not about xrange at all)

but in general i think i agree that python3 was about making python generally less retarded on a few dimensions. weird stupid shit like print being some special non-object was just idiotic. the way python dealt with strings was like watching a train you KNEW was heading for a collision. we had to fix it, and it was a bit painful, sure, but it needed to be done.

>>62326188
test

am I admin now?