5 ms·
Whether it's technically better or not is usually not in question. It's whether it's compellingly better to the point of outweighing the migration cost. For mos
by freyrs3 13y ago
Whether it's technically better or not is usually not in question. It's whether it's compellingly better to the point of outweighing the migration cost. For most of the community it still seems the answer is no.
- wisty 13y agoIt's hard to write libraries in both versions. At the moment, Python 2 may be more productive, because it's got more libraries. But the way things are going, Python 3 will soon reach parity, and eventually take over. If that happens, it was no longer a smart choice to go Python 2 for a new project. I'm not saying you should port old code anytime in the next few years (unless it's a library). But it's probably worth thinking about whether or not new projects should use Python 3.
- sigzero 13y agoPython 2.7 is a dead end regardless. Python 3 is the way forward.
- ansgri 13y agoIt is also guaranteed to be extremely stable, and will be supported nearly forever as some important libs just won't get ported.
- pyre 13y agoJust like how Perl 5.x is dead and Perl 6 is the way forward? /s
- ak217 13y agoExcept for the part where Python 3 is real, production ready and about to become the default.
- shaneofalltrad 13y agoAnd you forgot to add, the lack of API and support on a lot of products even on a fresh start-up. Check out for example, Google Data API 1.0 (GData 1.0) and GData 2.0 the newest. They have Python stuff for GData 1.0 (Google Data Python Library) using Python 2.5 in examples and zero libraries on Python in the GData 2.0 API. But even if they did build a library for Python 3.3, I would have to get DataNitro and a few others I love playing with to work on 3.