4 ms·
In the long term I think we need both 2to3 and 3to2, but for now 2to3 is more important. As long as both my dependencies and the users of my library are mostly
by bdarnell 15y ago
In the long term I think we need both 2to3 and 3to2, but for now 2to3 is more important. As long as both my dependencies and the users of my library are mostly on 2.x, I want that to be my primary development platform. If the only way to support both platforms was to do most of my work in python 3 and then backport to 2.x, I'd have never gotten started because that's too much of a change to take on at once. 2to3 gives me a way to support 3.x now (even as a second class citizen), and then a path to flip things around and make 3.x the primary platform when I'm ready.
- saurik 15y agoI just find the "for now" pretty hilarious: we are already seeing a shipping version of Python 3.2, with Python 3.x having been released for years, and we still need to encourage people to develop code for Python 2.x and use a build step to convert their code to Python 3.x. The effect of this attitude directly contributes to the behavior described in that recent article by the Jinja2 developer: where Python 3.x support is often considered by people to be just "look, I did it, and while it is a horrible hack and much slower than the 2.x version, it sort of works; now leave me alone", as opposed to helping people slowly embrace Python 3.x.