On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 2, 2015 at 3:05:09 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> If Dropbox were using Python 1.5, would you conclude that >> Python 2 was not worth developing in? > > No, if Dropbox were using py1.5, i would conclude that it was > being managed by monkeys -- since Py1.5 existed before > Dropbox was even founded (in 2007).
I have a git repository on my hard disk with commits dating back to August 1995. That's clearly being managed by monkeys, because git repositories can't exist before git was founded (2005), right? Well, actually, this particular repo was started in CVS, then imported from there into SVN, and thence into git more recently. Suppose Dropbox (the company) inherited a codebase from an older company, which itself inherited it from someone else - maybe they could be all set up with a codebase that pre-existed them by a decade. >> Just because company X is using 2.7, why does that mean >> that *you* shouldn't using 3.x? Surely you should make >> your own decision, based on your own needs. > > It's not just *ANY* company Steven, it's Guido's freaking > employer! That would imply that even GvR himself is not > motivated enough by 3000 to fight for it's adoption. More > evidence that py3000 is not ready for mass consumption. Wind the clock back to 2012, when Guido was working for Google. Dropbox wants him. Is he going to refuse the job unless they *first* get onto Py3, or is he going to accept the job with a view to migrating them? The only form of "fight[ing] for it[']s adoption" that you seem to be advocating here is an rms-style "if it isn't what I believe in, let it sink like the Titanic". That's not the only way to encourage something. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
