4 ms·

> the python community’s bizarre behavior during the 2.X -> 3.X move honestly made me think less of the language. There weren't that many people who were outri

> the python community’s bizarre behavior during the 2.X -> 3.X move honestly made me think less of the language. There weren't that many people who were outright against Python 3, other than Zed Shaw for a few years. It just took until Python 3.4 for the language to really be usable in production, and after that it took a couple more years for every library to be updated. But the community has been pretty unified for 5+ years at this point.

ssully 5y ago
This is my experience as well. There were plenty of people online vocally against Python3, but once we hit 3.4 I never worked with anyone IRL that was against it. The mindset was almost always "this is the way forward", so that's how we moved with our projects.
lanstin 5y ago
If by unified you mean no longer arguing, sure I switched from Python 2 to Go lang. (I will concede if I am doing exploratory stuff, I will start new repos in Python 3, e.g. for boto quick exploration.) I am still bitter about the fine Python 2 code I supported and extended that is now all go or Java.
3pt14159 5y ago
I used it production just fine before that. What didn't work for you? The unicode support was shoddy, but lots of other stuff worked fine. The problem as I remember it was that there were some critical tools that just were not making the switch. The last one I could remember having to have a separate runtime for was graph-tool, but there were just a ton of them in the scientific computing community. Also, I don't think making print a function was worth it. So many people had muscle memory on that that personally I think it was worth just single casing it.
- loudthing 5y ago
- Alex3917 5y ago
  > What didn't work for you? Weren't there a lot of major performance regressions in the first couple versions?
  - paganel 5y ago
    There definitely were, at least in the early versions. It would have been fine (I guess) if those early versions/iterations had been short-lived, so to speak, and for a stable and definitely faster version (compared to 2.7) to be made available shortly after that, but afaik that wasn't the case. If it matters I've been writing Python professionally for more than 15 years and I started my career by seeing the (less famous) Zope2 to Zope3 botched migration. When Python3 was first announced I had hoped that the devs behind the project had learned from that related experience, guess I was wrong.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CJefferson 5y ago
The "active community" is unified, I know a bunch of people with some personal piles of Python 2 who I don't expect to upgrade until they have no other choice. I also don't see why they should -- their code is running fine.
loeg 5y ago
> But the community has been pretty unified for 5+ years at this point. Sure, but they accomplished this mostly by displacing anyone who disagreed. That's fine, and Python 3 in a vacuum is a better language than 2. But I'd never make the mistake of choosing Python for a serious project going forward.

ssully 5y ago

This is my experience as well. There were plenty of people online vocally against Python3, but once we hit 3.4 I never worked with anyone IRL that was against it. The mindset was almost always "this is the way forward", so that's how we moved with our projects.

lanstin 5y ago

If by unified you mean no longer arguing, sure I switched from Python 2 to Go lang. (I will concede if I am doing exploratory stuff, I will start new repos in Python 3, e.g. for boto quick exploration.) I am still bitter about the fine Python 2 code I supported and extended that is now all go or Java.

3pt14159 5y ago

I used it production just fine before that. What didn't work for you? The unicode support was shoddy, but lots of other stuff worked fine. The problem as I remember it was that there were some critical tools that just were not making the switch. The last one I could remember having to have a separate runtime for was graph-tool, but there were just a ton of them in the scientific computing community. Also, I don't think making print a function was worth it. So many people had muscle memory on that that personally I think it was worth just single casing it.

loudthing 5y ago
Alex3917 5y ago
> What didn't work for you? Weren't there a lot of major performance regressions in the first couple versions?
- paganel 5y ago
  There definitely were, at least in the early versions. It would have been fine (I guess) if those early versions/iterations had been short-lived, so to speak, and for a stable and definitely faster version (compared to 2.7) to be made available shortly after that, but afaik that wasn't the case. If it matters I've been writing Python professionally for more than 15 years and I started my career by seeing the (less famous) Zope2 to Zope3 botched migration. When Python3 was first announced I had hoped that the devs behind the project had learned from that related experience, guess I was wrong.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CJefferson 5y ago

The "active community" is unified, I know a bunch of people with some personal piles of Python 2 who I don't expect to upgrade until they have no other choice. I also don't see why they should -- their code is running fine.

loeg 5y ago

> But the community has been pretty unified for 5+ years at this point. Sure, but they accomplished this mostly by displacing anyone who disagreed. That's fine, and Python 3 in a vacuum is a better language than 2. But I'd never make the mistake of choosing Python for a serious project going forward.