26 ms·
To add on to this, I'm not agreeing with the backlash from Python 2 to 3. And I wouldn't want it in the ash heap of history - I definitely think there's a defin
by monoideism 7y ago
To add on to this, I'm not agreeing with the backlash from Python 2 to 3. And I wouldn't want it in the ash heap of history - I definitely think there's a definite place for nice, quick, easy dynamic langs like Python, particularly for exploratory programming.
I'm just saying the move to Python 3 turned out to be a huge deal to a lot of people (it surprised me), and for that reason, trying such a big jump at Python 2 would have been risky and could have derailed Python's forward progress at a critical point.
Would the downvoters like to share their reasons for disagreement?
- WorldMaker 7y agoI think the question goes back to the size and scale of users at the 1 to 2 jump versus the 2 to 3 jump. Python didn't really start to hit most of its "forward progress" in terms of both user adoption and being so deeply integrated into systems. There was no Django for Python 1, for one example. As another example, I'm pretty sure Debian and its heavy reliance on Python for so much of its system scripting didn't happen until Python 2, either, but a quick search didn't turn up a reliable date. It probably would have been a lot less risky with so many fewer daily users, so many fewer huge projects to migrate.
- monoideism 7y agoYou may be right. I first used Python on a regular basis in 2002 (after release of Python 2), so I wasn't aware it had so little adoption prior to Python 2. But it definitely was picking up by 2002.