4 ms·
There’s no doubt that the 2 -> 3 transition was rough for the Python community. I personally stopped using Python as my go-to language in the early Python 3, si
by mikl 7y ago
There’s no doubt that the 2 -> 3 transition was rough for the Python community. I personally stopped using Python as my go-to language in the early Python 3, since writing Python 2 code felt stupid since it was outdated the moment you wrote it, and 3 wasn’t really well supported by the community and tooling yet.
On the other hand, Python adoption has really taken off since Python 3.5-ish. Python has never been more popular.
So while you may wonder what might have been, had the transition been smoother, it’s hard to argue that Python 3 is a failure. All’s well that ends well, I guess?
Although it’s sad that Guido felt the need to step down. It’ll be interesting to see where Python goes this decade, now the transition is over and there’s a wealth of possibilities in front of it.
I expect there’ll be a lot of people looking to replace JavaScript with Python once you can run it in the browser with WASM.
- roca 7y ago"All's well that ends well" neglects the costs to the community of bad decisions. It also encourages people to think that those decisions must not have been very bad, and not learn from those mistakes. You can see that at work in the responses here. "And I still feel it was the right move. Somehow Python is even more relevant today than it was when this painful process began." I.e. success is thought to justify every decision made along the way. I see this fallacy at work in Linux too. "Linux is successful, therefore haphazard CI and using email to track bugs and patches must be a fine way to operate".
- mrr54 7y agoHaphazard CI and using email to track bugs and patches is a fine way to operate.