Python Gotcha's?

[Paul Rubin]

rusi <rustompmody at gmail.com> writes:
> Costs can be single-cased (s) -- basically those that can be handled
> by a 2to3 module

You can't really 2to3 a large python application and expect to then just
start using it without further attention or testing.  You may have to do
a fairly complete (i.e. expensive) QA and qualification cycle on the
2to3 output, depending on the application and your environment.  It's
easier to just keep running python 2 for older programs even if you're
using python 3 for newer ones.

> IOW the irony: the success of python (large n) implies the failure of
> py3k...  Of course not so ironic if one considers that Fortran, Cobol,
> C cant be changed precisely because they are so successful

But those languages do change.  We just got a new C11 standard, for
example.  And the more radical change to C was of course C++, which
went off in its own direction.

IMHO the main weakness of py3 is that its benefits over py2 are rather
slight.  I've been involved in several newly started python projects in
the past few years and they use py2 because what's the point of dealing
with brokenness if you're used to something that works and where the
gain from switching is insignificant?  Py3 would enjoy a lot more
success in my opinion, if it broke py2 much more drastically than it
does, but delivered larger gains.  I guess maybe that can happen with
py4.