Why

compatibility
python 2.x and 3.x aren't compatible with each other, so you have python2.7 and python3.5 installed
things that work with any 2.x version should call on "python2", which will be a link to python2.7 (or the currently installed 2.x version), while something needing 2.7 specifically will call on python2.7

all this is so you can have multiple versions installed without conflicts, you only have two versions installed, plus some symlinks

Python 3 is not backwards compatible with Python 2, so in order to be able to run both 3 and 2, you need different executables.

but why didn't they plan the language out when they were making it so it doesn't come to that?
how come bash versions are all backwards compatible

It is though.
Python 3 has been around for a decade, people should stop writing new python 2 code.

what about the other stuff, like puthon-config, python-exec2c, pyshell, pydoc, etc
why is all that necessary?
shouldn't python be just a simple scripting language?
why does it have a package manager?
how come bash is just a simple executable

Attached: 1475317133283.jpg (392x420, 75K)

I don't know. Very few languages ever make changes as breaking as they did.
Really, the whole Python 3 vs 2 thing is a clusterfuck, but it can be nice to remove legacy baggage sometimes.

>Perl 5.000 was released on October 17, 1994.
>Perl 5.001 was released on March 13, 1995.
>Perl 5.002 was released on February 29, 1996.
>Current stable is 5.26.2, April 14, 2018.
this is like the antithesis to 'chrome versioning', and i though linux 2.6 was long lasting (2003-2016)

>but it can be nice to remove legacy baggage sometimes.
yea, problem is that if it's not done right, you end up with two incompatible versions which live side by side for far too long
what good is making python a little nicer if everyone now has to have two interpreters installed, and always have to check what version something supports before they get it
i hope the differences are enough of an advantage for developers to make up for the disadvantages for the end users

I'll laugh so hard if they break it again with Python 4.

Don't be disingenuous. Python certainly doesn't try to solve the same problem as bash, if any.

>yea, problem is that if it's not done right, you end up with two incompatible versions which live side by side for far too long
the real problem was the language creators supporting v2 for too long after v3 was out

yeah but why can't it be just a simple nice scripting language
why does it have to do all that other stuff?
i'm comparing it with bash because bash is a scripting language it has only one executable, meaning a scripting language needs only one executable

>how come bash versions are all backwards compatible
Nope they are not. They are however POSIX compliant so yeah as long as you follow that all _should_ be good

>Nope they are not
well they don't have to include multiple versions of bash in distros

They don't have to include multiple versions of python too. You just need to live without older python programs as you live without older bash scripts too if they use non-POSIX shit

Many scripts written for 2.x are broken in 3.x since it isn't fully backward compatible. So to be safe and not break a bunch of systems, they release them separately.

Python devs are fucking trash, its sad so many idiots ruined a decent language & fucked up the dev environment. You can try something more self-contained such as pyenv, which serves as a quarantine for the python virus.

python is dogshit slow
change my mind

get faster computer faggot

There really isn't anything broken in python 3 though. Even just the str/unicode crap was enough to justify a break in v3. Can't think of any current issues that need to break compatibility to fix.