3 ms·

This post is a bit of a rant for my taste, but I do agree with him on just one point. Python 3 was not enough of a clean break for me to get me very excited abo

This post is a bit of a rant for my taste, but I do agree with him on just one point. Python 3 was not enough of a clean break for me to get me very excited about jumping. There are some new things, but a lot of it feels like change for the sake of change. I believe this is what stifled my adoption of Python 3.0. However, I disagree strongly with the writer that having a Python 2 and a Python 3 side-by-side is a bad thing. Adoption was expected to be slow all along, and there's nothing wrong with supporting Python 2 for the indefinite future. Python 2 has been a rock for many years. Even in the release notes, it's mentioned that Python 2.7 will most probably be supported beyond the typical two years. On top of that, I think that most people are waiting on Django, SciPy, Twisted, and others before making the jump.

jnoller 16y ago
It is a rant; but its to be expected to a certain degree. Python 3 is a big change, and while some may think it's "change for change's sake" (honestly, it really isn't) I expect we're going to hear more rants like this as the days go on. We're steadily adding features to Python 3 which will make it an even nicer target, and things like NumPy are being ported soonish (there are python 3 builds available for it), so, yeah. It's unfortunate we can not make the transition a cake walk for everyone, but as you said, Python 2 is a rock, and it would have been grossly irresponsible of us to just walk away from it. At this juncture, python 2.7 simply makes sense - it helps ease the ramp, and fixes bugs / makes other improvements, etc, etc.
- erlanger 16y ago
  What I'm wondering is...why backport even a single feature?