4 ms·
There is no meaningful performance increase to go to a backwards incompatible version? Three letters: DOA. if not performance then at least we'd need some crazy
by antrod 13y ago
There is no meaningful performance increase to go to a backwards incompatible version? Three letters: DOA. if not performance then at least we'd need some crazy new feature like good multi threading or perhaps running on a new relevant platform (say ios or android). Otherwise we will be 2.X forever.
- ak217 13y agoActually, there are some minor performance increases, but there are tons of minor improvements, and the new async framework landing in 3.4 is very exciting.
- tbatterii 13y ago> new async framework landing in 3.4 is very exciting this is the killer feature that would move me to python 3. alas, not released yet. And I took a rails job :(
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Actually, there are some minor performance increases And apparently some fairly major ones (e.g., decimal in Python 3.3.)
- beagle3 13y agoIt's only when you start doing unicode seriously that you see how broken python2 is. It is not unworkable - but it's a mess that is hard to resolve, and keeps biting you in old code paths that weren't tested with character from this subset rather than that subset. So, Python 3's killer feature is reasonable Unicode support.
- cdavid 13y agoThe problem is that reasonable unicode support is a non-issue in many areas were python had a strong competitive advantage over other languages (e.g. data analysis, scientific python). I don't know much about unicode myself, but some people I trust like Armin Ronacher have showed how some python3 are still heavily broken w.r.t unicode (http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/7/2/the-updated-guide-to-unicode/ http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/7/2/the-updated-guide-to-unicod...).