4 ms·
I think your premise is wrong. The page you linked to alone mentions half a million in revenue & grants. The Wikipedia page links to a Guidestar report that no
by Eridrus 9y ago
I think your premise is wrong. The page you linked to alone mentions half a million in revenue & grants.
The Wikipedia page links to a Guidestar report that notes 2.9M in revenue in 2015.
Python is valuable, but how valuable is the iterative development on the actual core? There are still a lot of companies on 2.7 who have basically decided that the last decade of Python work isn't really useful enough to even do a free upgrade and are only starting to migrate now that all the libraries are ending support.
- suzuki 9y agoI think the invention of Python 3 was an unhappy thing. It seems true that "there are still a lot of companies on 2.7" and it would be natural that they think "the last decade of Python work isn't really useful". The basic incompatibility between Python 2 and 3 comes from Unicode strings. The design of Python 3 might be adequate ten years ago when there are many character encodings in the world. However, they began to converge to UTF-8, you know. It would be rational now to use byte strings transparently overall just like in Golang. What people wanted would be a modernized Python that is compatible with Python 2 and it would have been feasible.
- jcrubino 9y agoAbsolutely correct. Performance took a big hit in python 3 as well. If users are performance bound through use-case, chances are they are using pypy. If pypy3 is going to lag python3.6 + why upgrade at all. Pypy just got numpy and pandas. My sense is that Python 3 was redesigned with web-services in mind like Youtube, when the highest code contributing use-case in python was science and data pipeline related. The science users are all still using python, but only in ways that Python 3 enhancements were not especially important for.