4 ms·
IMHO, this is incorrect. Python's back-porting of 3.x features caused Python 3 adoption to take even longer (no pain, no gain). But, I think this was a necessa
by mangeletti 11y ago
IMHO, this is incorrect.
Python's back-porting of 3.x features caused Python 3 adoption to take even longer (no pain, no gain). But, I think this was a necessary evil, because if PSF had forced everyone with a "upgrade or perish" attitude, I think many would have abandoned Python.
- jamwt 11y agoPretty sure there would be a fork. Many large tech companies (Google, Dropbox for two) are deeply invested in Python 2, and some of us already have some modifications to CPython. Python 2 is Too Big to Fail.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- TorKlingberg 11y agoI disagree. The main thing holding back Python 3 use has been library support. Library developers do no want to maintain two separate codebases, so it is very important that a certain subset of the language works under both 2 and 3. The backported features in Python 2 and some backwards compatibility added to Python 3 in recent years have really helped with that.