3 ms·
If you think Python 2.x support ends when the core team stops supporting it, you haven't been studying history. Programming platforms with large code bases (e.
by nas 10y ago
If you think Python 2.x support ends when the core team stops supporting it, you haven't been studying history. Programming platforms with large code bases (e.g. Cobol, Fortran) have extremely long lifetimes. What's more expensive:
1) porting millions (possibily billions) of lines of working Python 2.x code to Python 3
2) keeping the Python 2.7.x interpreter in deep maintenance mode?
This idea that you can force people to move to Python 3 keeps coming up and is misguided, IMHO. There are two proper solutions to this issue:
1) make it easier to port from 2.x to 3.x. We are still making progress. Python 3.5 includes %-style formatting for byte strings. Allowing 'u' as a prefix for strings was another example. Practicality beats purity.
2) make 3.x a more compelling platform for new development. The amount of goodies in 3.0 was pretty underwhelming. I certainly wasn't very excited about moving to it. Async IO is a neat feature. Keep them coming.
- bjt2n3904 10y agoThis is the problem with Python 3. The arrogance of the people in support of wrestling it from us. > Frankly, if these "carrots" haven't convinced you yet, then I'll wager you're not really the sort of person who is persuaded by carrots. As someone that uses Python as a C replacement for one-off-scripts that work with binary objects and pure ASCII, Unicode is not a carrot. Unicode will never be a carrot. If anything, Unicode keeps me away. If I was developing web apps, GUI programs, or data processing libraries, sure. These would all be carrots. But I'm not. The simplicity of Python 2 is my carrot. > Python 3 does have carrots, and I want them. You have them. But you seem to be more interested in taking away my carrots, so you don't have to worry about them any more. That's arrogance.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]