Yes, python2/3 scripts are possible, and yes, Homebrew works. However, I don't really want (if I can help it) to install homebrew on all the workstations of ev

Yes, python2/3 scripts are possible, and yes, Homebrew works. However, I don't really want (if I can help it) to install homebrew on all the workstations of everyone on the team (mostly video-editing), and for personal laptops, I don't really want to add that as a requirement. I certainly don't want to turn my < 100kb of scripts into hundreds of megabytes of requirements. I'm already having to bundle an up-to-date static compiled standard rsync rather than the apple one (to cope with extended attributes across SMB mounts...). It would be really nice to not have to think the whole time "Is this compatible python2 and python3", but to just write pure python3. A lot of our scripts are to do with managing and synching all the files needed for video-editing, and other media-management utilities. I already dumped BASH (my initial attempt), as it failed or became ludicrously verbose when dealing with things like folder names starting with '-' or '*', newlines, quotation marks, tabs, or other "special" characters in file names. I don't know HOW they managed to get newlines into filenames, but our editors are creative people. I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to embed fonts and colours next. So it does involve quite a lot of string processing, our automation scripts. Our tape archival system is CentOS, our main Server is a Synology RAID, and all the main edit stations are OSX, with the possibility of adding Windows boxen in the future. And since not all our projects are in English, everything is UTF-8, and mostly 'just works'. But I don't think the transition to Python3 is going to be 100% seamless. Hopefully unittests help, but I'm sure there are cases I'll miss.