Python discussed in Nature

[Fabien]

On 12.02.2015 12:25, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Fabien<fabien.maussion at gmail.com>:
>
>> >... what a coincidence then that a huge majority of scientists
>> >(including me) dont care AT ALL about unicode.
> You shouldn't, any more than you care about ASCII or 2's-complement
> encoding. Things should just work.

And they do! Since almost one year in writing scientific python code, 
not a single problem. I wouldnt even know about issues if i didnt read 
some posts here.

>> >But since scientists are not paid to rewrite old code, the scientific
>> >world is still stuck to python 2. It's a pitty, given how easy it is
>> >to write py2/py3 compatible scientific tools.
> What's a pity is that Python3 chose to ignore the seamless transition
> path. It would have been nice, for example, to have all Python 3 code
> explicitly mark its dialect (a .py3 extension, a magic import or
> something) and then allow legacy Py2 code and Py3 code coexist the same
> way C and C++ can coexist.

But this was exactly my point! Today in 2015 it's incredibly easy to 
write py2/py3 code for a scientist. The whole SciPy track has done the 
transition. Not an issue anymore either, for me at least (python 
youngster ;-)

Fabien