6 ms·

People still stuck in python2 and arguing that python2 is better than python3 is weird. I get it, more features does not mean better and newer does not mean be

People still stuck in python2 and arguing that python2 is better than python3 is weird. I get it, more features does not mean better and newer does not mean better but seriously, just do the jump to python3. It's not that much work and the language is much nicer to work with. I've built a library with python2/3 support and do most of my work in python3. Maybe my web dev background biases me somehow, but I can't remember the last time I had problems with a major library not supporting python3. To me this seems more like tradition/age/generation -related. Those who started back in python1/2 are the ones with problems moving to python3, while young people who started with python 3.x are already running 3.5/3.6. ps. like the author said, there will always be large corporations stuck in very old techs - that doesn't mean the rest of the world too has to use Cobol or MUMPS.

Singletoned 10y ago
> Those who started back in python1/2 are the ones with problems moving to python3, while young people who started with python 3.x are already running 3.5/3.6. I'm not sure this argument works in your favour. You appear to be saying that the people who like Python 3 are those who have no experience of anything else, whereas the people who have experienced other things are reluctant to use it. You'd have to give at least a little credence to the worries of the experienced people.
- elmigranto 10y ago
  The other way to look at this is those experienced in 2 are suffering from baby duck syndrome. Similar phenomena are almost universally a case with new things in IT, CS and probably life. Takes older generation to "die out" for a society as a hole to accept new way.
- Latty 10y ago
  Except I know plenty of experienced Python 2 users (like myself) who moved to 3.x and like it. The point being made, I believe, is that the only reason to prefer 2 is if you are locked into it for historical reasons. The differences are small, and all the arguments against 3 are really just 'breaking changes suck' - yes, they do, but it turns out that we aren't perfect and language designs aren't perfect - you either make breaking changes or live with bad designs forever. Python made those breaking changes - the alternative just means that in X years we'll move to an entirely different language that does things better instead of moving to Python 3, and at least having an upgrade path.
- elnygren 10y ago
  > who have no experience of anything else ...or who have no burden of the past to bear Don't take me wrong though - I'm not trying to say experience is bad. Just saying it alone is not sufficient.
geocar 10y ago
> but seriously, just do the jump to python3. Or jump to another language. Here's my problem: I don't program unless I get paid, and I simply cannot sell this crazy idea: "hey, you know all that software you paid me to write? how about you pay me again so you can have it in python3?" It seems like if I want my programs to run for more than ten years I shouldn't be using Python.
- amatix 10y ago
  Sounds like you're pitching a complete rewrite, which absolutely isn't the case. Six works great and is simple to push through for side-by-side compatibility. That combined with `from __future__` for Py2.7 allows most codebases to work with small changes in a side-by-side manner.
- oblio 10y ago
  IMO that's the wrong approach. The correct one would be: "Hey, you know all the software you want to pay me to write? It will be in Python 3 now".
  - geocar 10y ago
    I'm not going to work for free.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      You are not reading what the person you are replying to is saying.
      - geocar 10y ago
        I said I cannot invoice the customer "convert perfectly good codebase to python3", and I said I'm not working for free. The only other option I can see you might be suggesting is to defraud my customer by converting that codebase to python3 but say I was doing something else. I don't want the reputation of being one of those people.

Singletoned 10y ago

> Those who started back in python1/2 are the ones with problems moving to python3, while young people who started with python 3.x are already running 3.5/3.6. I'm not sure this argument works in your favour. You appear to be saying that the people who like Python 3 are those who have no experience of anything else, whereas the people who have experienced other things are reluctant to use it. You'd have to give at least a little credence to the worries of the experienced people.

elmigranto 10y ago
The other way to look at this is those experienced in 2 are suffering from baby duck syndrome. Similar phenomena are almost universally a case with new things in IT, CS and probably life. Takes older generation to "die out" for a society as a hole to accept new way.
Latty 10y ago
Except I know plenty of experienced Python 2 users (like myself) who moved to 3.x and like it. The point being made, I believe, is that the only reason to prefer 2 is if you are locked into it for historical reasons. The differences are small, and all the arguments against 3 are really just 'breaking changes suck' - yes, they do, but it turns out that we aren't perfect and language designs aren't perfect - you either make breaking changes or live with bad designs forever. Python made those breaking changes - the alternative just means that in X years we'll move to an entirely different language that does things better instead of moving to Python 3, and at least having an upgrade path.
elnygren 10y ago
> who have no experience of anything else ...or who have no burden of the past to bear Don't take me wrong though - I'm not trying to say experience is bad. Just saying it alone is not sufficient.

geocar 10y ago

> but seriously, just do the jump to python3. Or jump to another language. Here's my problem: I don't program unless I get paid, and I simply cannot sell this crazy idea: "hey, you know all that software you paid me to write? how about you pay me again so you can have it in python3?" It seems like if I want my programs to run for more than ten years I shouldn't be using Python.

amatix 10y ago
Sounds like you're pitching a complete rewrite, which absolutely isn't the case. Six works great and is simple to push through for side-by-side compatibility. That combined with `from __future__` for Py2.7 allows most codebases to work with small changes in a side-by-side manner.
oblio 10y ago
IMO that's the wrong approach. The correct one would be: "Hey, you know all the software you want to pay me to write? It will be in Python 3 now".
- geocar 10y ago
  I'm not going to work for free.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    You are not reading what the person you are replying to is saying.
    - geocar 10y ago
      I said I cannot invoice the customer "convert perfectly good codebase to python3", and I said I'm not working for free. The only other option I can see you might be suggesting is to defraud my customer by converting that codebase to python3 but say I was doing something else. I don't want the reputation of being one of those people.