11 ms·
I don't understand the python2 vs python3 fuss. Maybe I'm not doing anything interesting enough, but I find it fairly easy to write code that runs in python >=
by jorge-fundido 11y ago
I don't understand the python2 vs python3 fuss. Maybe I'm not doing anything interesting enough, but I find it fairly easy to write code that runs in python >= 2.7 and python >= 3.3. If I was working in a python2-only code base, I would just baby-step it towards python3 compatibility. It doesn't have to be a complicated, disruptive task.
- nas 11y agoThings are a lot easier with recent versions of Python 3. Not spending more time on supporting 2/3 compatible codebases was a big mistake in my opinion. I think Guido had the idea that everyone was eventually going to run 2to3 and then be done with the conversion. There is too much Python 2 code out there for that to work. Python 2 was too successful and businesses have no inventive to convert working apps. The %-formatting (printf style) for bytes is a big deal (introduced in 3.5). Putting a 'u' prefix in front of text strings and 'b' in front of byte strings will not go a long way in making things work.
- ant6n 11y agoNext step: bring back print. For my code base, I'm mostly worried about division being different, which will introduce silent errors when integer types break down (or up?) into floats.