On 09/08/2017 05:45 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
leam hall <leamh...@gmail.com> writes:
I've wrestled with that discussion for a while and Python 3 loses every
time.
The context of the thread you started was that you are a *newcomer* to
Python. Now you say you've considered Python 2 versus Python 3 many
times? What explains that apparent contradiction?
The original comment was "OOP newbie". My reading is that s/he has
used Py2 for years but never actually created a class - which is a
perfectly reasonable thing in Python, unlike some languages.
That said, though: even if you're not going to move to Python 3, I
*strongly* recommend moving to 2.7. Python 2.6 is ancient and not in
support; Python 2.7 is still old, but is in support (for a few more
years with python.org, and then possibly after that if you have
pay-for support eg with Red Hat). There should be very few reasons for
sticking with 2.6.
Those millions of servers running Python 2? You'd be surprised how
many of them are now actually running Python 3 - but the rest of them
NEED to be on 2.7 if they want bug fixes and security patches. Don't
wait for a major problem.
ChrisA
Chris, there's a big part of me that agrees with you.
However, those millions of servers are running Python 2.6 and a smaller
number running 2.7. At least in the US market since Red Hat Enterprise
Linux and its derivatives run 2.6.6 (RHEL 6) or 2.7.5 (RHEL 7). Not sure
what Python SuSE uses but they seem to have a fairly large European
footprint. RHEL 7 goes out the active support door (End of Production
Phase 3) mid-2024.
I've read comments about Python 3 moving from the Zen of Python. I'm a
"plain and simple" person myself. Complexity to support what CompSci
folks want, which was used to describe some of the Python 3 changes,
doesn't help me get work done.
That said, if the next job I go to is 100% Python 3 then I guess I'm
doing a lot more Python 3.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
