5 ms·

Python3 is not exciting because well there is nothing to be excited about. Consider me an average programmer, I have been using python for a year+ now. Most of

Python3 is not exciting because well there is nothing to be excited about. Consider me an average programmer, I have been using python for a year+ now. Most of the everyday stuff can be done in 2.7, some functionality I need / can't do I google and get a solution which works in 2.7. Why Py3 is not adopted is because there is not much benefit you get for doing the extra work (think chemistry - activation energy) On another note, why can't we port it the little goodness back to 2.7 ?

dded 13y ago
> Python3 is not exciting because well there is nothing to be excited about. I think this depends on whether or not you use, or will ever need to use, Unicode. I don't, and so Python3 is not only not exciting, but it creates a new problem for me: suddenly, I need to think about the difference between bytes and strings. Now maybe this is healthy for me, maybe it builds character. But it also adds effort and work that bring me no benefit. I'd like to see some of the smaller improvements of Python3--I'd like print to be a function, but in the big picture I'm better off with Python2. I wonder if the Unicode problem could be solved in a way that I wouldn't need to think about it: perhaps utf-8 everywhere somehow.
- Flimm 13y ago
  Separating byte strings from Unicode strings is as close to solving the Unicode problem without thinking about it as you'll get.
  - dded 13y ago
    Perhaps you misread my intended meaning, or I didn't state my position well. I don't have a Unicode problem. There is one (suppose HN forum software were written in Python2, for example). Python3's approach to solving an important problem that I don't have makes solving problems that I do have awkward. So I stick with Python2. I have to believe that there are people with both problems.
Fomite 13y ago
I think the concept of "activation energy" is a good one. If can get work done in 2.7. My job is not to port code - it's to get work done. Until there's something that means I'll get work done faster using 3, there's really no reason for me to try and adopt it.

dded 13y ago

> Python3 is not exciting because well there is nothing to be excited about. I think this depends on whether or not you use, or will ever need to use, Unicode. I don't, and so Python3 is not only not exciting, but it creates a new problem for me: suddenly, I need to think about the difference between bytes and strings. Now maybe this is healthy for me, maybe it builds character. But it also adds effort and work that bring me no benefit. I'd like to see some of the smaller improvements of Python3--I'd like print to be a function, but in the big picture I'm better off with Python2. I wonder if the Unicode problem could be solved in a way that I wouldn't need to think about it: perhaps utf-8 everywhere somehow.

Flimm 13y ago
Separating byte strings from Unicode strings is as close to solving the Unicode problem without thinking about it as you'll get.
- dded 13y ago
  Perhaps you misread my intended meaning, or I didn't state my position well. I don't have a Unicode problem. There is one (suppose HN forum software were written in Python2, for example). Python3's approach to solving an important problem that I don't have makes solving problems that I do have awkward. So I stick with Python2. I have to believe that there are people with both problems.

Fomite 13y ago

I think the concept of "activation energy" is a good one. If can get work done in 2.7. My job is not to port code - it's to get work done. Until there's something that means I'll get work done faster using 3, there's really no reason for me to try and adopt it.