On 06/01/2014 22:41, Nicholas Cole wrote:
I hardly know which of the various threads on this topic to reply to!
No one is taking Python 2.7 away from anyone. It is going to be on the
net for years to come. Goodness! I expect if I wanted to go and
download Python 1.5 I could find it easily enough.
Like everyone else, when Python 3 came out I was nervous. A lot of my
code broke - but it broke for a good reason. I had been being cavalier
about strings and ASCII and bytes. A lot of my code was working by
accident rather than by design, or because my users had never fed it
anything that would make it fall over. Of course, my first reaction was
a defensive one, but once I had got over that and got my head around
Python 3's view of the world, I was pleased I had. I find writing in
Python 3 leads to more robust code. I like the way it forces me to do
the right thing, and I like the way it raises errors if I try to get
away with something I shouldn't. Going back to Python 2 now feels a bit
like stepping back to the seductive and permissive hell of PHP in some
ways! If I could be sure that I was coding just for me and not having
to support things still running on Python 2, I would move to Python 3.3
and not look back. Except, yes, there are still libraries that haven't
made the change....blast!
Python 2.7 is there if your software was written to run on the 2 series.
I am sure it will either be distributed with (as default or option)
major operating systems for some time. I am totally unpersuaded by the
argument that 'back porting' more and more into Python 2 will ease the
transition. I think it will just use up developer time, and delay
further the day when releasing new code for Python 3 only becomes not
only reasonable but the natural and default choice.
I am really glad to see that at least one distribution of Linux is
moving to Python 3 as the default. I'd much rather see developer time
spent improving Python 3 than managing a transition.
I realised when Python 3.0 came out that eventually I would have to move
to Python 3. I spent the next release in a state of denial. But I had
years to get used to it, and I'm glad I have. It "feels" more robust.
Of course, I haven't ported every little program: but no one is
forcing me too!
All of these threads are written as if everyone's code is about to be
broken. It isn't. But if you want the new features, you need to make a
move, and it is probably time to write all new code in Python 3. If
there's a dependency holding you back, then there will be a Python 2
interpreter around to run your code. That all seems pretty reasonable
and straightforward to me.
Nicholas
The first sentence from the blog which gives this thread its title "It's
becoming increasingly harder to have reasonable discussions about the
differences between Python 2 and 3 because one language is dead and the
other is actively developed". Funny really as I see bug fixes going
into Python 2.7 on a daily basis so I can only assume that their
definition of dead is different to mine and presumably yours.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
