"More About Unicode in Python 2 and 3"

[Mark Lawrence]

On 06/01/2014 22:41, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> I hardly know which of the various threads on this topic to reply to!
>
> No one is taking Python 2.7 away from anyone.  It is going to be on the
> net for years to come.  Goodness! I expect if I wanted to go and
> download Python 1.5 I could find it easily enough.
>
> Like everyone else, when Python 3 came out I was nervous.  A lot of my
> code broke - but it broke for a good reason.  I had been being cavalier
> about strings and ASCII and bytes.  A lot of my code was working by
> accident rather than by design, or because my users had never fed it
> anything that would make it fall over.  Of course, my first reaction was
> a defensive one, but once I had got over that and got my head around
> Python 3's view of the world, I was pleased I had.  I find writing in
> Python 3 leads to more robust code.  I like the way it forces me to do
> the right thing, and I like the way it raises errors if I try to get
> away with something I shouldn't. Going back to Python 2 now feels a bit
> like stepping back to the seductive and permissive hell of PHP in some
> ways!  If I could be sure that I was coding just for me and not having
> to support things still running on Python 2, I would move to Python 3.3
> and not look back.  Except, yes, there are still libraries that haven't
> made the change....blast!
>
> Python 2.7 is there if your software was written to run on the 2 series.
>   I am sure it will either be distributed with (as default or option)
> major operating systems for some time.  I am totally unpersuaded by the
> argument that 'back porting' more and more into Python 2 will ease the
> transition.  I think it will just use up developer time, and delay
> further the day when releasing new code for Python 3 only becomes not
> only reasonable but the natural and default choice.
>
> I am really glad to see that at least one distribution of Linux is
> moving to Python 3 as the default.  I'd much rather see developer time
> spent improving Python 3 than managing a transition.
> I realised when Python 3.0 came out that eventually I would have to move
> to Python 3.  I spent the next release in a state of denial.  But I had
> years to get used to it, and I'm glad I have.  It "feels" more robust.
>   Of course, I haven't ported every little program: but no one is
> forcing me too!
>
> All of these threads are written as if everyone's code is about to be
> broken.  It isn't.  But if you want the new features, you need to make a
> move, and it is probably time to write all new code in Python 3. If
> there's a dependency holding you back, then there will be a Python 2
> interpreter around to run your code.  That all seems pretty reasonable
> and straightforward to me.
>
> Nicholas
>
>

The first sentence from the blog which gives this thread its title "It's 
becoming increasingly harder to have reasonable discussions about the 
differences between Python 2 and 3 because one language is dead and the 
other is actively developed".  Funny really as I see bug fixes going 
into Python 2.7 on a daily basis so I can only assume that their 
definition of dead is different to mine and presumably yours.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask 
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence