4 ms·

I agree. I'm sure it's much easier for Python 3 core language development to happen versus 2, but for a regular joe what carrots are there, or is it really all

I agree. I'm sure it's much easier for Python 3 core language development to happen versus 2, but for a regular joe what carrots are there, or is it really all sticks?

xapata 9y ago
Check out the "what's new" documents for the various Py3k versions. v3.6 had very nice additions.
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  There's no reason those enhancements couldn't be part of 2 other than the maintainers decided to abandon the language for their own maintabity. That's their peragotive, but doesn't provide material benefits to the actual users.
  - xapata 9y ago
    The maintainers implemented enhancements in both 3.x and 2.x for many years. Eventually they got tired of it. Version 2.7 corresponds to 3.4. The reason why 3.5 is the first 3.x that started to gain a following was that Guido announced there'd be no 2.8. You could argue that the reason folks didn't adopt 3.x quickly was that the core devs stayed committed to 2.x. It's standard practice for software maintenance to work on both the old version and the new fork for a while, giving users a chance to switch. Look at how Microsoft manages versions of Windows. I think the Python devs stand out in their willingness to work on both versions for so long.
vacri 9y ago
For system-related stuff, python 2 is already 'everywhere', as it's used all over the place for that kind of thing. Even some nodejs modules depend on python for their installation. But if you're going to be doing more than making a standalone script, python 3 should be your target: that's where the maintenance is going to live, and that is where any 'cool_new_module' gets targeted. If you're going to make something big, do it in an area that gets support. I'm not a particularly advanced user of python (seriously, just ops scripts), but it looks like it's basically 'all sticks' to me. I've heard people grateful about better unicode handling, but not much more than that.

I agree. I'm sure it's much easier for Python 3 core language development to happen versus 2, but for a regular joe what carrots are there, or is it really all sticks?

xapata 9y ago

Check out the "what's new" documents for the various Py3k versions. v3.6 had very nice additions.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
There's no reason those enhancements couldn't be part of 2 other than the maintainers decided to abandon the language for their own maintabity. That's their peragotive, but doesn't provide material benefits to the actual users.
- xapata 9y ago
  The maintainers implemented enhancements in both 3.x and 2.x for many years. Eventually they got tired of it. Version 2.7 corresponds to 3.4. The reason why 3.5 is the first 3.x that started to gain a following was that Guido announced there'd be no 2.8. You could argue that the reason folks didn't adopt 3.x quickly was that the core devs stayed committed to 2.x. It's standard practice for software maintenance to work on both the old version and the new fork for a while, giving users a chance to switch. Look at how Microsoft manages versions of Windows. I think the Python devs stand out in their willingness to work on both versions for so long.

vacri 9y ago

For system-related stuff, python 2 is already 'everywhere', as it's used all over the place for that kind of thing. Even some nodejs modules depend on python for their installation. But if you're going to be doing more than making a standalone script, python 3 should be your target: that's where the maintenance is going to live, and that is where any 'cool_new_module' gets targeted. If you're going to make something big, do it in an area that gets support. I'm not a particularly advanced user of python (seriously, just ops scripts), but it looks like it's basically 'all sticks' to me. I've heard people grateful about better unicode handling, but not much more than that.