4 ms·

I don't know why you would say that. I'm sure it would be great to support Python 3, but saying that Python 2 is optional is a little strange.

by markbnj 10y ago

WorldMaker 10y ago
It's easier to make Python 2 code run on Python 3 than Python 3 code run on 2. Why shouldn't Python 2 be optional at this point? It's the version in maintenance-only mode. Python 2 is the VB6 of Python and it seems clear to me that it should be optional going forward for people spending support time on it.
- vorador 10y ago
  As much as I'd like everybody to be using Python 3, the truth is there's not a lot of immediate benefits, which is why 85% of Python users are still using 2.x.
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    As a Python user myself, the better, more reliable Unicode-by-default string handling in Python 3 is more than enough of an immediate benefit that I've stopped installing Python 2.x on my devices entirely at this point. Obviously, ymmv, but there seem to me to be a lot of immediate benefits to Python users and what feet dragging remains to stay in 2.x seems more like a political protest of some sort than one focused on actual benefits.
- markbnj 10y ago
  This isn't the thread for that debate, so I'll refrain from a specific response, other than to note that python2 has clearly not been replaced by python3, whatever the language's maintainers wish had happened.
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    You phrase that as if the language maintainers are the antagonist here. At that point, why continue using a language if you don't agree with the direction the language maintainers believe to be the language's present state? Why would you expect hosting companies (such as Amazon in this example) to necessarily pay support costs to continue hosting a deprecated version of a language side by side with the current version? So yes, it seems to me that from the standpoint of a hosting company like Amazon for example, Python 2 should be the option for them to host, should not be guaranteed, and maybe even shouldn't cost the same as Python 3 moving forward. That's the present of the language. You are asking them to support the past of the language. Perhaps you should be willing to pay for them to support the past of the language. (Of course, this particular example is moot because it sounds like Amazon themselves have engineers in the "Python 2 or Die" clade, but it's the example at hand.)
- jedberg 10y ago
  This is why Python 2 isn't optional yet: http://py3readiness.org/ http://py3readiness.org/ Of the top 360 libraries, only 332 of them support Python 3 (but almost all of them still support Python 2). This analysis was done in March and expected even support for Python 3 and 2 around now: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pythonengineering/2016/03/08/python-3-is-winning/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pythonengineering/2016/03/0... So maybe next year it will be optional, but not yet.
brianwawok 10y ago
I am fine with supporting both, but if you are only going to do one - pick the way forward. The more people that say "no python 2" the sooner it will die. I don't know, python2vs3 thing is weird. Bet someone has a good book on it.

I don't know why you would say that. I'm sure it would be great to support Python 3, but saying that Python 2 is optional is a little strange.

by markbnj 10y ago

I don't know why you would say that. I'm sure it would be great to support Python 3, but saying that Python 2 is optional is a little strange.

WorldMaker 10y ago

It's easier to make Python 2 code run on Python 3 than Python 3 code run on 2. Why shouldn't Python 2 be optional at this point? It's the version in maintenance-only mode. Python 2 is the VB6 of Python and it seems clear to me that it should be optional going forward for people spending support time on it.

vorador 10y ago
As much as I'd like everybody to be using Python 3, the truth is there's not a lot of immediate benefits, which is why 85% of Python users are still using 2.x.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  As a Python user myself, the better, more reliable Unicode-by-default string handling in Python 3 is more than enough of an immediate benefit that I've stopped installing Python 2.x on my devices entirely at this point. Obviously, ymmv, but there seem to me to be a lot of immediate benefits to Python users and what feet dragging remains to stay in 2.x seems more like a political protest of some sort than one focused on actual benefits.
markbnj 10y ago
This isn't the thread for that debate, so I'll refrain from a specific response, other than to note that python2 has clearly not been replaced by python3, whatever the language's maintainers wish had happened.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  You phrase that as if the language maintainers are the antagonist here. At that point, why continue using a language if you don't agree with the direction the language maintainers believe to be the language's present state? Why would you expect hosting companies (such as Amazon in this example) to necessarily pay support costs to continue hosting a deprecated version of a language side by side with the current version? So yes, it seems to me that from the standpoint of a hosting company like Amazon for example, Python 2 should be the option for them to host, should not be guaranteed, and maybe even shouldn't cost the same as Python 3 moving forward. That's the present of the language. You are asking them to support the past of the language. Perhaps you should be willing to pay for them to support the past of the language. (Of course, this particular example is moot because it sounds like Amazon themselves have engineers in the "Python 2 or Die" clade, but it's the example at hand.)
jedberg 10y ago
This is why Python 2 isn't optional yet: http://py3readiness.org/ http://py3readiness.org/ Of the top 360 libraries, only 332 of them support Python 3 (but almost all of them still support Python 2). This analysis was done in March and expected even support for Python 3 and 2 around now: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pythonengineering/2016/03/08/python-3-is-winning/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pythonengineering/2016/03/0... So maybe next year it will be optional, but not yet.

brianwawok 10y ago

I am fine with supporting both, but if you are only going to do one - pick the way forward. The more people that say "no python 2" the sooner it will die. I don't know, python2vs3 thing is weird. Bet someone has a good book on it.