The real problem with Python 3 - no business case for conversion (was "I strongly dislike Python 3")

[Terry Reedy]

On 7/2/2010 3:07 PM, John Nagle wrote:

> That's the real issue, not parentheses on the "print" statement.
> Where's the business case for moving to Python 3? It's not faster.
> It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6.

False. One cannot run code in 2.6 that depends on bugfixes in 3.1. Nor 
can one run code with unicode identifiers.

The exclusive new features in 3.1 and 3.2 are less than they might have 
been because the developers expended extra effort, now ended, to 
backport new things developed for 3.x. (One result was some neglect of 
the stdlib, which is now the focus of efforts.) One reason was to make 
porting to 3.x easier should one wish to do so. The other reason was to 
make some thing available should one wish not to do so. Using that extra 
effort as a reason to put down 3.x is not very gracious.

> There's no "killer app" for it.

For some, unicode identifiers are 'killer reason' to use 3.1.

Anyway, can you name me a "killer app" for each and every version of 2.x?

 > End of life for Python 2.x is many years away;

Given that 1.x is still used, so what?

> most server Linux distros aren't even shipping with 2.6 yet. How can a
> business justify spending money on conversion to Python 3?

How can a business justify spending money on conversion to 2.0, 2,1, 
2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, or soon, 2.7? Some cannot for some projects and 
have not.

Enough with strawman arguments against claims no sensible person has 
made. Python3 was developed for new Python programmers and current 
programmers who wished to add or switch. It was developed for new code 
and old code that would benefit from the changes.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy