Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 15/03/2015 20:59, Fetchinson . wrote: >> On 3/15/15, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 15/03/2015 19:05, John Nagle wrote: >>>> On 3/14/2015 1:00 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: >>>>> John Nagle <na...@animats.com>: >>>>>> I'm approaching the end of converting a large system from Python >>>>>> 2 >>>>>> to Python 3. Here's why you don't want to do this. >>>>> >>>>> A nice report, thanks. Shows that the slowness of Python 3 adoption is >>>>> not only social inertia. >>>>> Marko >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Some of the bugs I listed are so easy to hit that I suspect those >>>> packages aren't used much. Those bugs should have been found years >>>> ago. Fixed, even. I shouldn't be discovering them in 2015. >>>> >>>> I appreciate all the effort put in by developers in fixing these >>>> problems. Python 3 is still a long way from being ready for prime >>>> time, though. >>>> >>>> John Nagle >>>> >>> >>> This https://python3wos.appspot.com/ says differently. >> >> A "package supporting python 3" is not equivalent to a "package not >> introducing new bugs in its python 3 version relative to python 2" and >> is also not equivalent to a "package working without issues on python >> 3". >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> >> > > So the packages increase their test coverage as the bugs get discovered > and fixed. Or are you saying that a mere nine years isn't a long enough > time period to do an exercise like this?
Mark, did you read John's post or just respond with a knee-jerk defence of Python 3? I quote: "Some of the bugs I listed are so easy to hit that I suspect those packages aren't used much. Those bugs should have been found years ago. Fixed, even. I shouldn't be discovering them in 2015." Clearly a mere nine years is NOT long enough. Which is probably why the Python core developers are supporting Python 2 until 2020. Library authors will presumably be offering Python 2 compatibility for even longer. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
